Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 06-11 Meridian City Council StrateQic PlanninQ SessionlWorkshop June 11. 2002 The meeting of the Meridian City Council Strategic Planning Session/Workshop was called to order at 6:30 P.M., Tuesday, June 11,2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless and William Nary. Others Present: Mike Worley, Gary Smith, Bill Nichols, Brad Watson, Ken Bowers and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: o Tammy de Weerd X X Cherie McCandless X X Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird Issue #1: Discussion I Presentation of the Ten Mile Interchange Sewer Study B. Watson Watson: You guys have seen a lot of this the last five, six months. The last time that we presented this to you, we were just showing the technical considerations of the sewer study from Ten Mile Road, Franklin Road, 1-84 area. It was our understanding after that last presentation to the Council that we were to go back and have our consultant meet with property owners to look at their cooperation in terms of both easement donations or easement, maybe not donation but granting of easements and financial participation. We have authorized two separate contract addendums with J-U- B engineers and they are here tonight to go over what they found out in talking to all those property owners out there. So, I'll just have them come up and tell you what's going on. The main person, main property owner contact is Candy Miller from J-U-B. She's here along with Phil Krichbaum the project engineer and can answer any technical questions at this point. I'll just turn it over to Candy. We have her slides up on the screen. I don't know if you can see them very well. Miller: We have handouts that I think will work. City Council members. Thank you very much. I have several handouts here to start with. If it's okay, we'll just hand these around. (inaudible) handing out right now. This table is nice for that reason. Before we begin by going through all of this information-Oh, I'm sorry. Which ones do you need? Nary: I'm just making a pile for Tammy so she can be sure she gets it. Miller: Okay. To start out with, I'm going to tell you a little bit about how we structured the study because that gives you a little more understanding of the results from it. First of all, the information was collected. It was represented that we were getting information from them. We were not taking information to them from the City. We put together a uniform list of questions to use so that our interviews would be very much the Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 2 of 57 same person to person. We interviewed twenty-eight property owners. The area that we worked in was south of the City limits on the west side of Black Cat Road, on the east side about half way between Ten Mile and Linder and then on the south border of where we were, I think it was 1-84. Bird: You mean the east side of Black Cat, not the west side. Miller: Oh, the west. The west border of where we were working. Yes. I'll bet that gave you a start. Bird: Your yellow is on the east side. Miller: We have the information up there but I think it might be easier right here, to work from this. You tell me if you need to have me to point something else out. I need to have one map back. So, if we take out this map first, that will give you a little bit of the idea of the different properties that the owners were interviewed. In some cases, the properties are under contract, which have not closed yet. The one thing I do want to stress is that this information can change. It may be different. If we went out today and interviewed people, the information may by different. This doesn't signify a commitment on the part of anybody and it could change at any time. This just represents a snapshot in time of people's conversations. Here on the map, we have numbered each of the properties so, as we talk about them, we'll have one way to reference them. That's what the numbers are on the top of the properties there. Next, you'll see a lot of yellow. Those are the properties that support having the sewer out in that area. In the cases where the easement goes across, where the sewer line across, let's just go over that right here. This is the Ten Mile sewer line trunk in red. This is the proposed, what we call the perdum Black Cat line, which starts up here, comes down across the property here. It's the dotted kind of fuchsia color. The people whose property have crossed here, if they are in yellow, they indicate that they would certainly grant an easement. In this case, here, you'll see the alternative route right here that is dotted around the green property. That would be if easement were not possible across these properties. There are some problems with that. The green properties are the ones that do not support the sewer being out in that area. There was one property owner that I was unable to make contact with and that's the one in the blue there. About and acre and a half or acre point three, I think, of that area. Now, what we found out first of all, is that some of the people would like the sewer immediately and immediate isn't soon enough for them. They are exploring other alternatives to this sewer line that's demonstrated here. For instance, properties number 13, 14 and 15 and you'll note that the blue line indicates the City limits. So, property number 15 is already in the City. Those three properties would like to be annexed in and use service that may still be available on Ten Mile Road. There is another property over here. Property number 2. They would also like to be annexed and use available service that may be in that area. These people right here, that's by their asterisk, because they are wanting to move ahead right now with this. Also, then, you see different notations in parenthesis. That is the estimated time people would like to see the sewer developed and can meet their need. You can see up here, number one, that person is not in favor of the sewer so a timeframe really Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 3 of 57 doesn't have much applicability there. That why it's NA. Those were a timeframe of sewers not important are designated in that way. Then you see we have a category that's less than five years and greater than five years. If you look at Franklin Road and north, that area seems to be quite immediate in their desires, overall. Then as move down south of Franklin Road, there is still, like property numbers 17, they're not moving ahead right away but this particular just felt like, let's get it done right now because it's important to my decision about I do with my property. Then, you see, on property number 24, right just below Franklin Road, you see a question mark. That person doesn't really know what their plans are yet. They really couldn't come up with a timeframe that having a sewer was important to them. They knew that they would support it but a timeframe was not an issue for them at this point. That's what's indicated here. Are there any questions so far on this? Bird: Candy, we've got the Ten Mile and we've got the Five Mile trunk (inaudible) or whatever you want to call it. Like 24. Which trunk line would that flow in to? Miller: Do you know, I'm going to refer that question to Phil because I need to tell you, I'm not an engineer. I'm a talking person. So maybe he can make a note of that and answer that when he comes forward. Bird: Okay, I'll get him later then. Miller: Any other questions before we go on to the other information. If you'll take that next sheet that has all of the tables on it right here. This is other information that we were able to get from our interviews. The first one is the future use of their property, what their plans are for the property. First of all, there seemed to be quite a large number of people that know right now they plan on development for their property. In fact, there were thirteen of those people. Because you see there's a large difference in the size of the property, we have also listed the area that's involved with those particular property owners. For instance, with development, there are thirteen property owners and that involves 569 acres or 57% of the total acreage study. The total acreage study here, it in these areas highlighted, there is approximately one thousand and five acres. So, down here, agriculture. Right now, they are either farming, there's some raising cattle and things and down the road they know, they plan on selling their land and figure the best price will be for development purposes. So, that's what that category is. In that, we had five property owners, 342 acres or 34% of the property studied. There are some smaller properties that are residences now but they certainly favor the sewer because they feel at the time they sell their property, the property will be more valuable. There are two of those for a total of six acres. Less than one percent. Now, the next category, those people that are involved in agriculture, a lot of those did support the sewer. However, they hadn't talked about succession, what was going to happen with their property later on. The parents, generally, farming now and they knew that their children, in most cases, would inherit it but there wasn't talk of development yet so they didn't know for sure what it would be. The only thing that they really recognize, at this point, was agriculture. The other one, the residence, they plan on their property in the future being their residence. Not changing from that. Other properties, then, that Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 4 of 57 includes that property owned by the recreation district, the park, and then the unknown property. The blue one here. There were two of those properties, 23 acres or two percent. So, that's the next bit of information we've got. Do you have any questions on that information? Nary: Which piece is the-you said owned by the recreation district? Miller: That's going to be number four. Nary: Okay. Miller: The second chart shows the desired timeframe for the sewer as expressed by the owner. Of course, these are only where they actually desired to have the sewer. Those that wanted it as soon as possible, there are ten of those people and area there, 371 acres. That's 37% of the total. Those people that have the timeframe of less than five years and you can refer back to your map on this, four of those at 27% of the property studied. Greater than five years, four property owners, 132 acres or 13%. Now, here's this one unknown by owner that we talked about before. I have the question mark there because it corresponds to the question mark on the map. Two property owners are in that category for 12% of the total study. Those where they're not interested in the sewer really doesn't apply to them. That's 11 %. The next piece of information here is the preferred financial arrangement. We asked them, and Phil will talk more about this, about the different possible or probable ways of financing the sewer that the City could pursue. I'm not going to go over all of those but we just talked in general terms about what they would like to have. The one format-well, let's look at this. There were four properties that were willing to pay and people use this terminology fair share. However, that is determined whether it's per acre or flow or what it is but their fair share. There were four property owners that would be willing to pay their fair share up front. That includes 118 acres. Three of those four property owners specified that they were interested in an LID, that that would meet their needs. The next arrangement, possibly fair share up front. You know, people are not really willing to commit and say I'll absolutely do this or that so they said, well, they might be interested in that. There were five of those, 207 acres. Over here, two of those five were interested in the LID. Then, there were nine that would like to pay at the time their property is developed or sold. Within those nine, were people that are farming now, that are in favor of the sewer but they could not afford-they didn't want to have anything in place that would increase their expenses per year, at this point. Madam Vice President, are there any questions? McCandless: Thank you very much. Miller: Phil Krichbaum is going to go over the (inaudible) Krichbaum: We met with the Public Works staff on two occasions and, essentially, to brain storm what sort of funding options you have for the project here. As with most things, the devils and the details, we haven't gotten a formal legal review on these Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 5 of 57 alternatives as yet. As you explore these further, some items might flush out and not make these applicable. This is a real broad brush approach of options available to finance the project. They're generally broken out in two different types of categories. It's going to drive the project City developer or co-op of both the City and developers. Option one, of course, is a City driven project. The City entirely said finance on the up front. We've outlined roughly kind of the process behind that. The advantages and disadvantages pretty much inherent with you initiating your own project, retaining control of the project and, essentially, making sure it's done right. Sized and routing of lines to meet more than just the surface area it's routing through, the ultimate surface area of that trunk shed. With that, we've got the disadvantages listed here as well. Of course, that's a large up front cost for them. There is precedence for that type of extension project. Option two, local improvement district, LID, funding process we've outlined there, one through five, roughly. Essentially, the City would sponsor an LID and, of course, an LID does require the properties to be annexed and with that there are a lot of issues that come up with that. There's still the concept of cost, assigning cost, based on benefits derived and so, there would still be some cost prorating on the project cost running through a property versus how much of the capacity they're going to use for the trunk line and (inaudible) routing it through their property. So, there's an assessment process allocation that needs to go with that. The advantages, of course, are, you know, you're distributing the cost amongst more than the City on the up front over Option one. Again, you're building a more expansive project, which will mean it will-you won't have a lot of small patchwork phases to deal with here. You're going to initiate the full project here towards the LID so it will be done quicker and it will be done, potentially, with a lot less iterations. Disadvantages that we came up with initially, here, was the annexation. If you're annexing very large parcels, property owners that have large land areas who would like to continue to farm for a while, are faced with fairly high assessments, potentially. There's people who are not ready to develop right then. There's a disadvantage with high assessments for them, potentially. Option three is pretty much a co-op between the City and private property owners without going through the formal LID process. Essentially, the same sort of prorating between the cost of the project versus benefits derived for that to happen. Potentially, it's an agreement fashioned along those lines. Again, you get the relative advantages of distributing costs beyond specific initiated project. It does not require initial annexation for the landowners. Again, you can-you're initiating a more expansive project versus a patchwork, if you will. Relative disadvantages, again, are listed here that, I'm not sure how many of these, if any, the City has done in their history and it might be a fairly fair amount of legal rules to overcome. Lastly, is pretty much a developer driven project from the get-go based on each individual developer's project. So, you're going to get more interim type service options coming toward you. Probably not a big expansive project, if you care to drive it. That could be very much a disadvantage with this sort of thing. The advantage is, of course, that there's less risk to the City in terms of not putting together the up front cost. The development-also if there's (inaudible) per development because they're building what they need in a phased manner. That is kind of the four options that we had. I know that's a lot of information and my goal here was just to kind of outline general pros and cons and kind of get you thinking about what the options are that you might to pursue. Are there any questions on that? Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 6 of 57 Bird: Yes, I do. McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: Phil, go back to this one parcel 24. Which way-where's the flow to the Ten Mile (inaudible)? Krichbaum: It appears to be broken on that diagonal line. It's a high point. The parcel that's kind of broken both ways, both parcels at this time. Bird: Yes, that's one. And then also 16. It looks like 28, too. Maybe not. Also, I know this is white and above north of the railroad tracks up to Pine Street on Ten Mile, where will they get their sewer at. Maybe Gary can answer this one. The parcel there where the Fuller properties on the corner, the opposite corner there is asking me where they would hook their sewer there on Pine. Up to Pine. Gary, where was-the sewer comes down Pine to Fuller's property, doesn't it and gets all those subdivisions and stuff? It runs through that way. How do you get down from Pine to Franklin? Or do you come up? Smith: Mayor and Council and Councilman Bird. There's what they call a Ten Mile stub drain that comes up on the backside of the Fuller Park. On the south side of Fuller Park. Bird: Comes down the ditch there? Smith: Yes. That's a stub drain that would cross and end up at the railroad tracks. Bird: It picks up this ground? Smith: Right. Bird: What picks this ground up? The same thing? Smith: Right. It would either go this way or back this way- Bird: Into this one? Smith: Into Ten Mile. I'm not sure how the - Bird: This isn't in yet, is it, Gary? Smith: No. No. Correct. Bird: Have we even started off from it? Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 7 of 57 Smith: No. The sewer line exists back here at the back end of Coral Creek Subdivision. Bird: That's what I thought. It doesn't even go to Fuller Park yet. Smith: No, sir. Bird: Okay. Thanks, Gary. Okay. I have one for Phil. It looks like, to me, on your options, the City financed project is probably the cleanest where we don't to worry about latecomer fees and a bunch of legal hassles and we can put in the thing all at one time and have it done. So (inaudible) to Gary and Brad's specifications so we're not having a bunch of stuff. I appreciate the work you guys have done on this. This certainly gives us everything that we need to know to go on, I feel, and make our decisions. McCandless: Any other questions? Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: On the other methods, there (inaudible) that are not viable. What was the reason that those were not viable? Smith: A revenue bond pretty much distributed based on sewer and user rates. A City wide deal. This is pretty much an expansion project. I don't know what it would be to take it over very well, I'm thinking, in your City geo bond along the same lines. Levy to the property owner. Judicial confirmation is, of course, popular these days but for an expansion type project, probably not (inaudible) and have the DEQ (inaudible) a program pretty much funded for expansion of trunk lines and service area. I don't think they're too keen on that sort of loan money. Bird: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: This project is $7 million dollars was estimated, I believe, complete. I read that somewhere here if I can find where it is. Smith: Yes. Bird: Does that include the extension of the Ten Mile? The red line and also the Fertive Trunk line down to the freeway? Smith: Right. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 8 of 57 Bird: So that includes the whole-Ten Mile coming off and coming down past where it's at now down to it's dead end by the old Ten Mile farm. Does that also include the lift station? Smith: Correct. Bird: Okay. Thank you. Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: May I ask a question? The lift station that's on this map, is it an owner that doesn't want the sewer? Is that where the lift station (inaudible)? Krichbaum: It would actually go over to the west side of Black Cat. Just kind of a general symbolicy there. Nichols: Does your estimate cost include the estimate of cost associated with acquisition (inaudible) Krichbaum: We include a contingency on the estimates. Hopefully, that's going to handle it. But foreseen things or unforeseen things (inaudible) that was the contingency factor in that. McCandless: Any further questions? Thank you, Phil. Watson: We wanted to get this in front of you at this month because next month we'll be making budget presentations. Our preliminary budget includes a rather large sum for design for this project where, I guess, it comes before you as a go or no go. We want you to have all of the information so you can make that decision. If we get a favorable discussion out of those presentations, we will probably start the process of requesting proposals from engineers, obviously, contingent on funding (inaudible). We have some time to work through these funding issues but that design will be coming before you next month. That's alii wanted to add. Bird: I've got some questions for Mr. Watson and Mr. Smith, then. McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: Which option-do you foresee Option one as being the most prudent for the City? Watson: I don't know that we have a (inaudible) at this point. We've done an initial screen of property owners and I think if we pursue any of them, that we will go back to them again and really get down to the nuts and bolts. Once we get farther into design next year, we'll have better cost estimates and better alignments to know exactly where Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 9 of 57 we're going. I think at that time, we can probably start discussing these alternatives pretty much in detail. Bird: (inaudible) the alternative is different, that it'll affect the budget this year but the following year. That's something I think that Gary definitely (inaudible). The reason I like Option one is that we get a better amount of latecomer's fees, legal fees cut and pasted, sewers coming in and out. I'll bring it through my property but it'll only be ten inch thing and we need a twenty-inch or something like that. I think Boise, in the long run, has proven that going out and putting it in and paying it yourself up front and getting it out (inaudible). Thank you very much, Brad. McCandless: Thank you. Bird: Very nice presentation. McCandless: If we're through with that, we have Issue #2, a discussion of charitable donation of water use from Gary Smith. Issue #2: Discussion of Charitable Donation of Water Use - G. Smith Smith: Thank you. I've just got a quick handout. Bill Nichols wrote a little memorandum. I think he sent it to everybody. Do you all have it? Okay. I didn't have anything really to add to what he put together. I really don't have anything to add. I guess there are any questions, have maybe Bill- Bird: I'd like Bill to explain some of it. His memo is very, very good. I agree with it but, you know, are we all clear and doing the right thing, is what I guess, to put it simply? Nichols: Madam Vice President. Members of the Council. I think the issue was what should the City's policy be in regards to this request for donations (inaudible) Councilman Nary (inaudible) is to a least look at it and have some kind of policy. So, in order to get to a policy, we've got to look at what are the constraints within which the City has to operate this water system. It operates within the confines of this decision (inaudible) specifies how much can go, what can go into a basis for a water charge. And that case didn't address billing issues but it did address like whether you can factor in depreciation or you can factor in the costs of that. If you can think of a way that a donation becomes part of the cost of doing business in the Water Department, the City or I don't know. It's not like you're trying to sell some to somebody from Kuna that's going to come over here and lie. So, it's not like(inaudible) does something to try and generate good will and foster future business. It would seem that a donation is the type of thing that really- ***End of Side One*** Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 10 of 57 Nichols: --provided water last year for (inaudible). I live in Nampa. I pay Nampa water rates. So, I help make a donation for the Epilepsy Society. The City of Nampa is also operating a system (inaudible). But I didn't get asked about the donation. Bird: Nor did you get a tax write-off. Nichols: I didn't get to add it to my Schedule A. That's correct. By the same token, I'm not the kind of person that's going in and rail at City Hall for having furnished some water for a charity cause. I think some of the other citizens, there are. I guess where I'm coming from is your policy needs to be no donations because you're not like United Water. You're not making a profit and you're not somehow factoring the donation into your contribution to the community, which you use when you go for these- Bird: I agree with you very much. I like what Mr. Nary said originally. You know, what we said originally. Come back to us after the fact and we'll see. I have a real problem because a lot of these-we just had to raise our water and sewer rates and a lot of these people in Meridian are on a fixed income. I'm sure everybody would like to donate but sometimes they can't. We're donating for them and I don't think that's right. Not that I wouldn't do anything for charitable causes but I don't think that as a City that we have the right to make our rate payers-and, like you said, unless we're charging so much that it's unreal, which we know that we're not. From our study, we know we're not. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: I appreciate the work that Bill's done and Gary. This was the discussion we committed that we'd have as to whether or not it's practical or reasonable. I surely don't think the same summer that we raise the water rates is the same summer that we discuss some of the water away. I don't think that would make a lot of sense to anybody. I foresee there's potentially two ways of, I guess, this discussion coming up again. One is what we talked about originally, I think, was that if we were even going to consider this type of thing, it would be a check off type of deal like the Pennies for Parks, where people are choosing to put that into the fund to be used for charitable purposes. We would have to figure out a policy, administration method and those types of things and I don't think right now, in the big picture of priorities, to me, that's not a big priority to work on. It may be something at some point that we feel is important or other people feel is important enough for us to discuss that. The only other way that this may come forward and I can see it happening in certain circumstances, maybe not with the Epilepsy League but other ones where our biggest hook on collecting these water bills most of the time is turning their service off and them needing the service. Now, if you have a single user, single event type of circumstance like the Epilepsy League, that's not much of a hook to get anybody so, you're only left with a collection method. You know, you'd have a certain water bill and whether or not you could collect it. There certainly are opportunities for people where it isn't a donation. They're, essentially, Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 11 of 57 asking us to write it off as a method of donating it. I'm not necessarily in favor of that. We certainly could have the discussion if someone wants to have a discussion with us. Right now, I think our method for writing off is based on sound accounting practice not a donation type of policy. I could certainly see someone wanting to bring that forward and we can always discuss that at that juncture. Otherwise, I think this is what we committed to do. We committed to talking about it and I think it makes sense what Bill has brought forward and Gary. It makes sense. If there's something else comes along in the future, we can certainly look at a check off system or something else to do that. Bird: Do we need to officially adopt this policy? Nary: I don't know. Corrie: I don't know if we need to do it or not but (inaudible) staff that we can notify them that we have discussed it and that we-I don't know. Do we need a resolution or something that says that or just say that we discussed it and we said no and that's it? Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I think what we did is, I think we just told them you're free to come back. We would have that discussion so we would be on firmer ground. We certainly can have a conversation with them where if you wanted to simply call them or draft a letter but we really left the ball in their court to say, you know, if you want us to donate, you're going to have to come back and talk to us about it. All we committed to was providing the service and having this conversation about it. So, I don't know that we really need to do a resolution or anything. I think we've committed to doing what we've done and just go forward from there. Bird: I'm thinking about-excuse me. Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'm thinking about the future. Do we need to adopt an official policy that is cut and dried? We can say you can come back to us like we did that one but do we need to adopt-Bill, what do you think? Nichols: Madam Vice President. Members of the Council. I don't know that you have an official policy. I think the danger of telling people to come back sounds as though your options are open and I'm not sure that they are. Your options are very, very limited. I guess the option would be so say show how it will be legal for us to make a donation. We're already charging at rates to what the cost is. You're kind of proving the negative in a way if you say our policy is- Bird: Yes, okay. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 12 of 57 Corrie: Of course, if they can't come in and show where it would be legal, you could do it. Nary: You can always use the (inaudible) Corrie: That's always a budget item. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: Certainly, I think there's a-I agree with what Bill said. It probably is some proving it negative but realistically, you know, we're no different than any other organization that would come to the City to donate money or services or something else. People can always come and ask us. It just depends on what the budget is like and what the circumstances are. Obviously, we can't fund or we shouldn't be funding a donation out the user's fees that they pay. We certainly can fund a donation in some manner if we wanted to, to an organization. I don't know necessarily think we were going to but certainly they can always ask. Can we donate police services or can we donate other services for a particular event? People can ask. I don't that we're really going to get away from that anyway. McCandless: Any further comments? If not, we'll go on to Issue #3 and that's a discussion of water shut off policy and delinquency notice. Mr. Smith. Issue #3: Discussion of Water Shut Off Policy & Delinquency Notice - G. Smith Smith: Thank you, Madam Vice President. I've got a little memo that I put together concerning this issue. I'll just give this to you this evening for reading later on and I would like to bring it up at a Council meeting. Particularly the first item concerning our renter's policy or so called renter's policy that Councilman Nary suggested we discontinue and the staff supports that suggestion and we would request that a public hearing be set for that. Of course, with the City Attorney Nichols' comment that there may be some landlord lease agreements that contain this provision. I'm not sure how they change that. Whether they can amend those lease agreements at will or if they have to wait for a new renter. I'm not sure how that happens. The second part of this memo concerns our residential building procedure for account termination and reactivation. That's just a procedure that we want to follow through the Water Department. That is attached. The third page outlines C and D as to how that happens. I'm not sure whether this needs to have any kind of action from the Councilor not. I guess you can direct me in that regard. The last item is a delinquency notice that had been put together by staff and reviewed by City Attorney Nichols. We are endorsing this as a measure to try and reduce the number of turnoffs for delinquent accounts. The mailing, the preparation of this and the mailing of this delinquency notice will be handled by staff in house. It's not going to be a contracted mailing such as our Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 13 of 57 billing is. It will be mailed in time so that the delinquency account can be notified adequately notified in time so they can take care of the account if they so desire and remove themselves from the turnoff list. McCandless: Gary, why is it to be mailed to the present address? Smith: This is just an example. That's Leslie. They just stuck her name in there as an example. I asked the same question myself. How come Leslie's name is on here? Lastly, we've just last week sat down and looked at the water, sewer and trash bill. We tried to clarify some things in that bill as best as we could as we understood the concerns from our users. The new format-the bills are being reprinted. I've been waiting, to a point, where we can say we need some more bills printed. Let's make a change or some changes and try to clarify the concerns that have come in from our citizens that are using the water. Hopefully, we've helped. I guess we'll have to wait and see. The new bills that will be printed will have some clarifications as far as delinquent amounts and delinquent due dates and so forth. We would like to get the delinquency notice on the Council agenda if that needs to happen that way for your concurrence and allow us to publish that and send it out. We think, and we used to do this. It was done with a little card that was mailed. A colored card. Right. For one reason or another, MUBS thought that it wasn't effective and it went away but I think that everybody forgot to take into account how much time is spent in the field turning accounts off and the cost of doing that versus the cost of sending out delinquency notices. Other cities handle this in many varied ways and, in fact, I think I recall at a finance convention that a city in north Idaho, I think it was Hayden, actually took a notice out and pounded it into the ground in the front yard of delinquent accounts for everyone to see. Bird: I've heard of that. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: On the delinquency notice, Gary, I like the wording and the way it's written but I'm wondering from the staff time, right now, is the intent from a process standpoint, when this person is late, then this letter will go out after the ten days has expired and then have you-I guess maybe, for the lack of a better term, I guess sort of a pilot to do this because I don't know if we can tell right now. Is it going to increase staff time, what the cost is of mailing, printing, those kinds of things? A card, I'm assuming, was sent because it's cheaper to mail it than a letter. Especially, I think the rates go up at the end of this month. So, I'm assuming there is some cost. Right. I like the draft. I guess we want to do and then look at it in 90 days or 120 days and say, do we notice an increase, less turn offs, more response with the expense, can we do it in a card or something that's cheaper or something like that. I like the wording and the card may not be significant enough for people to notice, especially, with junk mail, coupons and those kind of things that maybe they won't notice it. It's just something to think of. On the Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 14 of 57 renter's policy, since I was the one that brought it up, I had an opportunity to look at- maybe Bill would know this off the top of his head. I know there's a case out of Grangeville and that's not going to impact changes in this policy. I haven't had an opportunity go look for that. Nichols: Madam Vice President. Members of the Council. The Grangeville police said that a city doesn't have a lien on the property for the unpaid water bill. Their ordinance that. So, our ordinance says we have a lien. But according to the Grangeville police, we don't have a lien. Which is one of the reasons that the billing director or the owner agree that it had better paid (inaudible). That's the hammer over the owner. We're going to shut off the water after those letters go out. (inaudible). So, that's why we did the billing director. (inaudible) One of the things, one of the resistances that you can get on this is that it's the landlord's move. If the renters are not going to be paying the bill directly, if the landlord has to foot the bill, he has to either send the bill, pay the bill or send the bill to the tenant to payor has to try and build it into the rent based upon historic usage type thing. That's the problem side of it for the landlord is that there's that delay on getting their money back (inaudible). It may not be as bad a problem with apartments or things like that (inaudible) is there buildings they're renting- Nary: Madam Vice President, the reason for this discussion is because they seemed to have passed that some cost on to us. The renter was eating that cost instead of them. Bird: I was going to say, we're eating the cost and they're not. They're the ones that should be. Corrie: Madam Vice President. Gary, your proposed residential billing procedure, the one you gave me is, D was taken out. Is there any reason? Smith: This was for the rental. This is a rental billing directive. This is not residential. Corrie: Oh, residential. I'm sorry. Okay. I've got you. McCandless: Gary, recognizing that this has nothing to do with termination but have you talked any further about a possible voluntary level pay on water bills? Smith: No. We haven't. We've had some discussions about direct pay and there is some software, I believe, that Leslie is talking about getting in this budget year for that, for direct pay. We have not further discussed on that. McCandless: Was the fact that you're billing three services on one be a deterrent? Smith: I don't think it would be a deterrent because the trash stays constant. It's just going to be a matter of determining what a level pay amount would be for each account if they so desire to do that. With our records, we can do. We can determine what an average or I should say what a yearly bill would be for a residence. They're going to have to have some history, though, in order for us to do that. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 15 of 57 McCandless: So it probably wouldn't be a renters. Smith: That might be more difficult. I'm not sure how we take into account the tenure of a resident (inaudible). Nary: Madam Vice President. One of the things maybe and again I guess evaluating priorities but with the new rates that come on board in July, this might be a better discussion for next year. We'll have at least the rates that are really going to make more sense in evaluating level pay, how many years worth of history or whatever we want to talk about next spring or before next summer. Then if (inaudible) program is a pilot or something like that to see how that would work. At least in my mind, that would make more sense after we impose these new ones because otherwise we're going to use historical data based on rates that we know were lower than they needed to be and all of a sudden people will do it and then they'll have a huge adjustment after a year with the rate change. That might be a better discussion next spring or early summer. Bird: Plus, we'll be looking at these rate changes and everything at the yearly and then at that time, maybe we can do that. We might not have to increase or anything but we're at least going to look at it. Smith: Thank you. McCandless: Thank you, Gary. Next up is Linda Rupe. Is she out there? Bird: Yes. She's here. McCandless: Do you want to come up here, Linda? I've asked her to come and talk to us with the opinions of some of the merchants. She's president of the Merchant's Association on the Waltman Lane intersection project. Issue #4: Discussion of Waltman Lane Intersection Project - Linda Rupe of MMA Rupe: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council for giving me the opportunity to come and talk to everybody. What I did was a very informal survey of some of the merchants and business people in the area. I apologize for not having gotten it typed up so that I could give you all a handout. Basically, what I did is that I took the maps that were presented by ACHD of different options. I explained them to at least six merchants. There was a couple of others but I didn't jot them all down. I tried to get their input as to how they felt that it would affect traffic and how they felt that it would affect their businesses. I don't know if you want to take a look at these or pass them around or if you kind of remember what we had. I'll make this real brief because I know you have a lot on the agenda. Basically, a couple of the comments that I got, Meg Peters from Finer Frames, which is over by the Home Depot, her two main comments on the idea in general was that she was disappointed that none of the options did anything for the intersection of Progress and Executive. I guess that is. I've been fortunate enough to not be there during the Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 16 of 57 5:00 hour but apparently it is a real nightmare and traffic backs up in every direction at Progress and Executive. So, she was a little disappointed that- Bird: Not just at 5:00. Nary: Just a little worse at times. Rupe: Well, I've heard that too. I've heard that too. So, she was a little disappointed that none of the options did anything to relieve that area. She also felt that anything that would omit or reduce traffic-well, like most of them omitted a left turn onto Meridian from the intersection. She felt that anything that omitted that left turn between Executive and Corporate would create more traffic on to Main Street because a lot of people would not take the time to turn at Corporate and head back up Meridian again. I talked with John Biss at John's Automotive Care. He felt quite strongly that anything that reduced or omitted traffic on Meridian between Executive and Corporate would significantly reduce the amount of traffic that would continue up Meridian and that that would significantly affect all of the businesses along Meridian Road. I talked with Gwen Alger at Something Special Antiques, Carolyn at Wild West Bakery and Carma Matheson at Rachel's Place. All of them being a little further up Main Street. Their biggest concern was that any of the options that reduced or omitted traffic between Executive and Corporate on Meridian would significantly increase the amount of traffic that continues up Main Street. So, that seems to be the continuous, on going-oh, Executive is the one that comes between McDonalds and the Chevron Station there. McCandless: Just that little section is called Executive? Rupe: Yes. Isn't that Executive? Bird: That's Central. Rupe: Central. Okay. 1- Bird: I was going Executive's on down around. Rupe: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My mistake here. Thank you, Cherie. That makes a lot more sense now. Okay. So, it is Central and Corporate. That area that is the concern. I also talked with Captain Bill Musser at the Meridian Police Department. His feeling was that the traffic light at the intersection is a key. If the option chosen reduces the traffic on Meridian, he says it would not do much good unless the light was arranged so that the traffic on Meridian coming across the freeway or the traffic on Main coming across the freeway continuing up Main, if that light is eliminated so that the traffic can move continuously through there and then have a blinking red at Central and Meridian if traffic is allowed through there. That would make some of those options make more sense. So, his concern was more the light at the intersection and the use of that light in trying to get the traffic on Main to continue straight through. The biggest concern was with most of the business owners in the area is the omission or limiting of traffic Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 17 of 57 between Central and Corporate on Meridian. They pretty much all felt that that would make more people tend to continue straight up Main Street and not bother to take the turn down Corporate to head back up Meridian. Especially, during busy hours when the turn signal at Corporate would stack up and they'd see that it was probably faster to go straight through the light and straight up through 1 st. I think the general consensus, in a short manner, is that most of these options would shift traffic from Meridian to Main, which is kind of the exact opposite of what everyone is hoping to do. One option that they all did seem to like was the very last one in which Corporate continues the full length along beside the storage place and cross the canal and came down to Waltman. That would allow traffic to continue as it has been on that block or two between Central and Corporate on Meridian. That seemed to be the favored idea was to have that continue along through there with a small jog along Redlin-yes, near Redlin there to get you back on to Meridian. McCandless: You mean to get back on 1 st. Bird: No. Rupe: No. It would get you onto Meridian. Bird: Then you'd have to come up to the intersection. Rupe: Yes. It would come off of Waltman. Bird: (inaudible) you drop it in there and then (inaudible) we discussed, Cherie, and then it comes out like this onto-you'd eliminate that road. McCandless: Okay. I've got you. Rupe: It's so hard to see on these things. They're so dark. I tried to use white out on them to draw. Bird: The problem is-Linda, do they want to keep the left hand turn and everything left hand turn? Rupe: No. I think they needed a right in right out on this little leg. Bird: What about this-I didn't understand what you said about this on Central here. If what Captain Musser said about putting the lights here and then having a blinking red lights here, you'd never get off of there. Rupe: Yes. It would be difficult and that was-but he says that would keep the traffic moving through here and you know, people would probably take other routes to get up here. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 18 of 57 Bird: Take this down and put the stop light-I think there's a-Terry, there's a plan for the stop light Corporate and Main and at Corporate and Meridian. Is there a stop light there too? Little: Yes. In the future, yes, at Corporate and Main is for this year. Bird: That's what I thought. For this year. But you aren't planning on eliminating that are you? Little: No. Just one phase of it. Rupe: That was his feeling was that the traffic for the north south should be eliminated and a blinking red on these two. Bird: You could never get out to the left there. Rupe: It would be very, very difficult. I would agree with that. Corrie: Plus, nobody would stop here unless they get a break. Rupe: Perhaps, if he were here perhaps he could explain what his thoughts were on that. I should have probably gotten into more detail with it. Bird: This is what the six people-this was the one they liked the best? Rupe: I actually talked to about nine but I just jotted down. Bird: Take Corporate and- Rupe: Yes. Everybody seems to think that if this could come all the way through, then a very small leg could be put in here with a right in right out. That would allow people to continue to come across the freeway and left up Meridian and that would continue to- Bird: But you would have-they didn't plan on having anybody turn left here. Rupe: No. This is a right in right out only. If they do want to come in this way, they would probably just want to come up this way or they could come up and go this way. That would stop traffic from stacking there. Traffic would not stack there if this were a right in right out. Right in to it right out only. Bird: The only problem that I see and we brought this up with Terry, is when you continue this left hand, you swing here to the right even if you can't turn left there. You've got two or three drive-ins right here. You can stack. I've seen it and not at busy times. I've seen cars stacked back up through this left hand turn lane while people are getting in there. Now you've got one closer because you brought Kentucky Fried up. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 19 of 57 Rupe: But because they're simply doing a right into there, it shouldn't stack too bad if there's not other traffic. Bird: Well, you've got cars trying to get out too at the same time. Rupe: Yes. That's true. Bird: I just have a real concern, not being a traffic expert or anything, I have a real concern in keeping that as left hand down Meridian. Corrie: I noticed that with KFC moving where they have, it's cut down on that stacking. Bird: Has it cut down? Corrie: Yes. Bird: Okay. Little: Yes. Because they've got some more room to come around and they actually stack on the property there more than- Bird: Good. Good. Because I have seen it stacked there and I just- Corrie: Then you have that come in and could make a left turn and go this way? Rupe: Yes. As they can now and they can continue up Meridian to Franklin or wherever they want to go to head that direction or I think this may reduce a lot too. A lot of people may come up here and just head that way to get out. Bird: Eventually, you'll be able to get in over there and everything. Corrie: Most of the people are going to come here and around and come on down. Bird: Yes. I think you're right. Rupe: But if you eliminate northbound traffic on this leg, everybody has to come up this way and a lot of them are just going to keep going. I mean it's just going to be human nature to just keep going especially if this turn light is starting to stack and it will stack. They're going to continue this way. So it appears that trying to keep northbound traffic on this little leg of Meridian is going to be very important to all of the businesses along Meridian and I think it's going to be equally important to all the businesses along Main. McCandless: Do you have any comments on that, Terry? Little: I've got some-the alternative that you asked us to look at last time and I think address (inaudible) if she's done with the- Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 20 of 57 Rupe: Yes. Go ahead. Little: (inaudible) I kind of redid them to A, Band C so we didn't confuse them with the old numbers. The first one is the design alternative. The second one is the one-way concept between Corporate and Central. The third one is the one that right turn in out at Waltman. So, the first one, A, is a right turn in and out onto Main. That's the one that we've had in the hopper for about nine years. You're familiar with that one. It has the road there and it basically requires you to go all the way to Corporate to make a left if you're coming from the freeway, make a double turn there and wind back. We talked about that one last time. The second one is the one that would be a one way from Corporate south on Meridian. So instead of a three-way signal at East 1 st or at Main and Central, Meridian, you have a four-way but there's no left turn in north bound so you have the same thing. All the northbound Meridian traffic has to go to Corporate, have a double left turn at Corporate and they can wind back with the one-way. The only difference from an access standpoint, in a way here is that if you're coming down Main Street and you want to make a right in to, say Meridian and then into Waltman, you'd better do it at Corporate. With the other plan, the first one, you could make that movement. The third alternative is the one we talked about which is full access intersection at Central just like it is today only the roadway to Waltman would be moved north and that would be right turn in and out. That black line you see there is a median on there so they're a right turn in out. It allows you full movement. It's like you were talking about a left turn so you do have north bound traffic on Meridian. They just can't turn left into Waltman. Rupe: Where do they turn to come in here? It looks like you've got this- Little: No. This is A. Rupe: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Little: It would be C. Sorry. You've got to keep moving on (inaudible). Rupe: Oh. There we go. Bird: You'd still be going north. Little: There's an island here. So, this would be right turn in out. You could turn north and go up Meridian here. You could come south and go across or left. Rupe: So, this is the right in right out here? Little: Correct. Rupe: Okay. Little: Right. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 21 of 57 Rupe: But you can come up Meridian Road and turn left onto Meridian Road. Little: Correct. The last one shows you the combination-could go with any three of them but you had specifically expressed concern with if you made it a right turn in out that you'd have Corporate Drive extension and this is kind of our concept that we think would best fit the property lines and that and that you'd-it would be constructed around and back down to Waltman, a road to come over and pick up Greenhead, which is stubbed out of the subdivision Landing and then a future road would continue on down and pick up Ruddy, which is another one over in that Landing area. A couple of the West 5th and what's this, West 3rd, would come down in the future and pick it up, the developer. We envision that the rest of these would be by developer. The final sheet gives you a comparison of these alternatives. A, Band C. A is the right turn in out. The one that's been around for the nine years. It's a right turn in out at Meridian itself so you only have a three-way intersection at Meridian and Main/Central. That gives you a capacity, volume to capacity of .84, meaning you're using 84% of your capacity with the design volume. It's a build out. What we estimated to be the build out. You've still got 16% capacity at peak hour with build out at that intersection. That's the Main/Central/Meridian. The next intersection to the north, Corporate and Main would be a 96% capacity at build out. Alternative B would be an 86% with the one-way concept southbound 84% at the one to the north and then the third one, the right turn in out of just the Waltman connection with full access at Main and Central and Meridian, 90% capacity and about 74 or 75%, right in there, capacity at the northern intersection. So, all of them work at those two major intersections. We also looked at the others but these are the two main ones. All of them work. On the cost estimates, about $935,000 for the first two, well, all three of them basically about the same. There isn't any- there's a little of this on that and the other on the other and this level of estimates, we couldn't separate the three except the Corporate Drive extension would add about- yes, the Corporate Drive and the-what's the name of that other one? Bird: Greenhead. Little: Greenhead would add about a million and a half to it with right-of-way, in construction costs, we estimate. That's got to be built sometime anyway so that's not like the whole thing. It's just that we feel we could do a better partnership if the developer build it and, you know, we feel maybe that would happen anyway but that's just part of the thing. The issues on A and B, the comments. We do have approximately the $935,000 program for right-of-way, the shoe next year and construction 2004. Any of the three, in a sense, could be built but adding Corporate to it is a million and a half and is not in the program. The operational issue that I mentioned the last time, that free right turn lane, if you just under Alternative A, there's no gaps from the intersection so it's definitely going to leave the State to widen the structure if we do Alternative A the way the signal would operate. Either the southbound is going or this is going so there isn't enough time as this builds out to where it would go. You'd need the State to have redone the structure by the time this starts getting really heavy Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 22 of 57 under A. Under B, somewhat similar to that although not quite as bad because you do have this movement here that provides you some gaps. It's a little better than that. Rupe: Would you run by me one more time? What a- Little: Sure. The A? Rupe: A or B. Little: Okay. The A, you have a free right turn lane. The way this operates, there's no signal this way so there's no traffic to provide a gap for these guys. This merge in becomes a problem. Eventually, you'll need a third lane across the interstate. That's the weakness of this plan in the long run. You really need to bury with an ITD replacement at structure with another lane. You have a little bit of the same problem with the one-way concept. Although you have some gap from this, you don't have this timeframe. When this northbound left goes, the southbound right goes. You don't have that so you still have some problem there. The third one actually probably operates best from that standpoint, that you wouldn't be dependant on that extra lane on the Alternative C. Bird: You'd have something like you've got basically now wouldn't you, Terry? Little: You've got something just like you have now. The northbound would provide gaps for the southbound. You could run those simultaneously. The difference would be that you'd have more lanes and we'd have three lanes northbound on Meridian and just overall more capacity. It would operate a lot like it does right now in that regard. Bird: I like A plus this one here. How far do you have the right-of-way already on Corporate, Larry, do you know? Don't you have it down through the Gode's property? Sale: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bird. That depends on whether or not they were to build a subdivision within the corridor (inaudible). We will have it when he records the plat and- Bird: That's right up to here isn't it, Larry? Sale: Yes. It extends from the canal back to- Bird: --this line or this line? That's what I thought. Okay. So from here to here, you have got the right-of-way? Sale: We have a part of the right-of-way. We bought a strip through there to put the storm sewer in. We still have to acquire probably another forty feet or so. We have- Bird: By doing this thing here, you just had it raised as $1.5 million dollars for the property. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 23 of 57 Sale: (inaudible) but as Terry said, that's kind of a given in any alternative. That's going to happen. Corrie: So this is actually C with the extension, right? Sale: Well, they would all have Waltman at some time. What you see there, I guess, is C. Corrie: The same thing? Rupe: Yes. It's Alternative C. Sale: If we can partner with the landowners, obviously, (inaudible) Bird: I think you could certainly do this because this, to me, is the biggest opening to developing this ground down here. This little stub here doesn't mean a thing. It's not going to add much more for Waltman than what it's already got. You just don't have to make a left hand corner and slide on. You just make a right sweeping one. This one right here opens up all this ground. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: If I understand what you're all looking at C, basically, most of the traffic of the traffic movement is similar other than this Waltman Lane, that little jog would be going but we would still have north south traffic at the intersection and then we'd end up with a signalized intersection over here at Corporate, which would be new. Would this signalized intersection at Meridian and Corporate be something as part of this or would this be at a later date? Little: We have most of that in. We just do it with our own staff. That's a real simple thing there to do that. That will be done when it's needed. Certainly done at this point. Probably not needed if this is done just to mirror what's there. It could be if this starts to develop. This left turn would then become important unless that was in. Either development here, putting this in. Either one would trigger that. Nary: Yes. It seems like if part of the intent, I mean, from what I understand Mrs. Rupe to say, was part of the concern of some of the business owners along this particular stretch was that losing that left turn down to go north on Meridian Road would be such an impact to them. Rupe: Actually, it affected businesses all the way up. Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 24 of 57 Nary: If the intent is we really do want to at least encourage a lot of the traffic this way as well as north on Main Street. I'm afraid if you turn left here, you'll have a hard time ever turning right at the stop sign here at Corporate. So you'd lose that effectiveness and people would stop using this intersection as much if you did it that way. I guess that would be something you can see on the design how it would play out. Sale: That wouldn't take as much or too awful long to put a signal in there- Little: You've got the underground and everything. Sale: The difference between now and this, is having a right turn in out here. Let's move farther away from this right turn in out. Nary: In blocking this off, I think, really helps because then you don't have people trying to stack up in here and trying to make a left across there. That's where the problem has been originally anyway. Little: It attacks the studio a little bit more than the other alternative because you can't- Nary: You can only get to it (inaudible) Little: You can only get to it from the north Meridian Road. Nary: At least this Alternative is a little bit better. I mean, this one you can't get to it without going around the block. Little: In theory, you could come in like this because there was only southbound traffic on Meridian so it changes it just a little. McCandless: Does anyone have any further questions of Mr. Little or Mrs. Rupe? (inaudible amongst Council) Nary: I guess, Madam Vice President, I can (inaudible) I think that of the three alternatives, I guess my preference is the C Alternative because it does allow at least some of the continued movement and does encourage some other alternative ability there without just turning that in- ***End of Side Two*** Nary: --works for a variety of different purposes. I do think, initially, A probably makes sense but I think as time has developed probably C is a better alternative for a variety of reasons for the City than the other two. Obviously, the extension of Waltman Lane at some point is by far the best one and that's just something that's going to happen at some point. Hopefully, sooner than later but at least as to this intersection, I guess my Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 25 of 57 preference would be C simply because it will still allow that left turn to occur and still allow some traffic to move that direction as well as at Corporate Drive and through that area. Bird: I encourage the Waltman extension. McCandless: How do you feel about that one, Linda? Rupe: I think it's very important. First of all, I don't believe they can do this until they do this. Well, perhaps you could. Okay. That's right because there's no stacking here. You're right. I'm sorry. Yes. I forgot which direction we were going. I think that, you know, the Waltman Lane would be absolutely vital to getting this area developing. If we're wanting to get some larger businesses, I don't know, like Target, some hotels, something along here, this is going to be very important. Corrie: But you can't get to Waltman Lane unless you do this. Rupe: Unless you do go all the way around the block. Bird: Well, yes, you come in and go right. Right in. Corrie: Yes, but you've got to come back through around this way. Bird: No. You can come up Meridian Road. Corrie: That's why I say- Bird: Oh. From there. I understand. You're right. Rupe: Yes. You have to go all the way around. I would think this is very important. Bird: I think the developers down here take a look at this, like Terry and Larry said, that they will certainly want to pick up the cost to get that done.! Nary: So, would it be our consensus that we would like the C, which would at least allow that same turning move and then Mr. Little has $1.5 million dollars laying around- Corrie: The last I heard you did this morning. Little: We could move ahead with this because it works either way and they really need that second access to deal with the traffic in that direction and looking at reprogramming this for either both or trying to keep this on line and moving ahead with this. Bird: I think you have to go with that, Terry. If you shut off the other one, you've got to have something from Waltman out to-and the Mayor brought out a good point because Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 26 of 57 if you're going to get onto Waltman, you're going to have to come to Corporate and come back to Meridian and up and go south. Corrie: Are you saying you think this needs to go with this? Bird: No. I think that has to go period. Yes. Then this is going to have to come at a later date. We all know that but the sooner the better. Rupe: So, hopefully, that's not too much longer. Sale: This is exactly the description here from the merchants concerned with keeping that movement. Rupe: Yes. Bird: From traffic engineers, is that a good-would that be your pick too, Terry? Little: Yes. I think so. You can't beat the combination. You'll have to (inaudible) Bird: Are you going to put the bids out next month, Larry? McCandless: We appreciate you coming out with these other maps. Thank you very much. Rupe: Yes. These are wonderful. I wish I'd had these to take around to people. Sale: I apologize (inaudible) it's kind of habit forming and I forgot you were (inaudible) Little: She's learning. Rupe: Is that it for me? Anything else? Any questions or anything? Bird: Thank you, Linda. Corrie: Thank you, Linda. Rupe: All right. I appreciate very much you giving me the opportunity to come and talk to you about it. Thank you. McCandless: Okay. Now we have a discussion of Issue #5 of the official newspaper. Mr. Nichols. Issue #5: Discussion of Official Newspaper - B. Nichols Bird: Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 27 of 57 Nichols: Madam Vice President. Members of the Council. Mayor. We received from the publisher of the Valley Times the proof that they now have that required a second class mailing permit which was required in the statute for official newspaper status. If you wish us to proceed with yet another ordinance naming a new official newspaper, you can tell us and we'll get one done. McCandless: Questions? Comments? Bird: What can we say? Corrie: I say put it on the Consent Agenda to do it and we'll make the ordinance. That's my preference. Nary: We've done it once now they- Bird: That's my preference too. Corrie: The reason we had to take it was because they didn't have the E-2-11. Now they've got it and they're a local paper. We should give it to them. Bird: I'm with that. I would concur. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would also agree. I guess I wondered, to be fair, I know the Mayor received some contact prior to this week. Do we want to put it on our workshop for the next month? At least let the Statesman come and tell us what they think, if they care. I don't know. Well, I know they care but I'm just trying to be fair to them as well, I guess is my thought. I mean, I don't have any problem with changing it but I figure rather than them having a hissy fit, we might as well at least let them come and tell us if they want to but it doesn't matter to me. Corrie: That's entirely up to the Council. They had a hissy fit when we did it the first time and I took it and told them that we're going to plan on doing and probably would do and I know that you're right, they did say why didn't you give us a chance and I said well, you got your chance from talking to me and not the Council. I can tell them that we're going to do it or we can do it in 30 days. I don't know that it would make that much difference in 30 days. Nichols: At this point, (inaudible) Bird: Madam? Corrie: Did you fax them the agenda? Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 28 of 57 Bird: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe that our track record in the City has been when Valley News has been licensed or whatever, they've always been our official newspaper I do believe. They are our local paper. We discussed this when we went a year ago or year and a half ago when we did this and I feel that it's only right that-and it's not that we take-we still publish stuff in the Statesman. It's just that this is our official newspaper because they're our official City paper. It's always been the track record. I agree with the Mayor. Get it on the consent agenda and go. Corrie: Because, I guess, it would be an ordinance, we can't do it on the Consent Agenda. I overstepped a little bit quick there but we could get an ordinance made up. Nary: They'd always have the opportunity to comment. Corrie: If they're there at that time. Bird: Let the Mayor read it in full while the rest of us take a break. McCandless: That would be good. Are we-oh, I'm sorry. Will. Berg: Madam Vice President. Just to address the issue. We still use the Statesman for various things. It's not like we don't give them any business at all but the requirements would be to publish in our official newspaper and then whatever circumstances, that we need more widespread publication or something of that nature, then we use them. We are combining and making shorter notices for our Public Hearings. We kind of combine those things so that it's not (inaudible) larger so we try to keep the cost down. It's not like we're turning our back on them (inaudible). McCandless: Are we agreed then that Mr. Nichols should write up an ordinance that we can consider at the Council meeting? Okay. (inaudible) McCandless: Okay. Issue number six. Discussion of the background check ordinance. Mr. Nichols. Issue #6: Discussion of Background Check Ordinance - B. Nichols Nichols: Well, this-I'm on the agenda that talked about this. (inaudible) This IS primarily a City Code and perhaps the Police Department should- McCandless: Well, I am going to ask for the Chief's input also. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 29 of 57 Nichols: Back when the issue first came up, it came up in the context of applicants for employment with the City and how we were going to handle that. We had a Human Resource Department ordinance and we had issues about background checks and we had issues about (inaudible) stuff kind of bouncing around and we got it done and then the Idaho State Police gave us notice that there were some additional requirements from the FBI in order to do those finger printing checks and so forth so we remanded those in the resources department ordinance to make the ordinance fit with what the FBI required. Then we got a letter from the Idaho State Police that said that if you're going to license the applicants our ordinances fit under a process that requires the background checks or license them (inaudible) we change our ordinance. So I simply took the previous ordinance regarding licensed applicants (inaudible) stuff that we used for various (inaudible) that I knew the FBI and I asked it be approved and sent it off to ISP and they came back and said yes, this will work. So now I sent it over to Will and apparently created a bit of a fire show in the sense that how are we going to do that compared to the way we used to do it (inaudible). We've got some applications that are sitting in a stack waiting to be processed because we don't have a way to get the background check on those applicants. (inaudible) applicants may get licenses (inaudible) McCandless: Will. Berg: Well, Madam Vice President, when I saw the ordinance prepared, I didn't realize that everything was being changed to more or less coming to the City Clerk's office as far as the interpretation of the background check because before it was before the applications-I send a copy of the application to the Police Department and we had everything with the background check. We sent it to the Police Department for their interpretation, whatever they wanted to look at, and get an approval from them. So when I saw the ordinance that more or less that they were (inaudible) applications the City Clerks. My concern arose because we don't know what we need to look at as far as for the background check and how we qualify the people. We may need to know what it means when it says whatever on that report. The second thing is, my concern is, is making sure we don't have some of those records here. I'd rather not have them, the background check before the license files. I'd just rather have something that says okay or not. I don't want that-this have to have-or happen into a file because they're public record. So, that was my other concern. The third thing is, you know, maybe having the right people in the right place that can interpret that stuff. I know that the Police Chief has some concerns and (inaudible) concern because I just want to work out a process or procedure that we can follow and make sure we do the licensee justice but also the citizens of Meridian protected by whoever reviews the licenses. McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Vice President. (inaudible) the Chief. There's an amended copy of the ordinance that's in our packet. Is that from your office, Will, or the Chief's or both? Is that the suggested amendment that's in there? Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 30 of 57 Berg: The hand written? Nary: Yes. Berg: That came from Sharon in my office. She and I discussed it to cross out things that-I think if you looked at whatever is tied (inaudible) underlined, what's crossed out is what was from the original ordinance as it was originally written. (inaudible) Nary: I understand this is what was proposed. I was just wondering how you could handle the changes. Berg: That was just to clarify some of the (inaudible). Nary: This portion would be (inaudible) an obscenity act this-I don't know what those are. McCandless: Chief Worley. Worley: Madam Vice President, I apologize. I haven't seen the amendments to this so I'm just looking through it. The ordinance was written. If the intent is to make this apply only to licensees in the seven categories, they're listed on the first because it appears to be a strike out on the-it would be one through nine with the exception of eight, which I'm not sure what it is either, one through seven and nine, I guess that I would withdraw my concerns about the Police Department's involvement if the intent of the ordinance is only to address those particular licensees because those are all ones that we would be interested in, in any case. My concern was, in general licensing, if it includes some other things and I can't give you too many specifics right off the top of my head but things that don't have a fairly salient law enforcement nexus. In other words, why would the Police Department be interested in whether or not this person becomes a licensee. My concern is that it adds another step that I'm not sure that we have any valid reason for getting involved in it. I guess that would come to mind for example would be if we were to license day care center operators. Now, that may become the subject of police inquiry if there's a complaint but for the Police Department to pass on whether somebody can run a day care center, I just would have some concerns about that and, quite frankly, in checking with both Boise and Garden City, the Police Department is not directly involved in the license and verification to the extent that this ordinance puts forth or that they have been in the past. The background check is done by the City Clerk's office and then with certain classes of licenses, the Police Department is just another review. It's not the, as Mr. Berg points out, the-what I'm hearing here is, the request is that we actually make the determination of whether or not somebody gets a license. You know, we give them a yes or no. I do have some concerns about that as a general concept but, again, the, let's call it eight categories that are listed here, are certainly those types of businesses that I think in any case that we can make because of some of Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 31 of 57 the historical problems with these kinds of businesses, we can make a law enforcement nexus with these eight. Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Just to clarify some of these things. The obscenity act of this are already an existing code so that's why that ones there. (inaudible) Bird: Nary, you've got a (inaudible) Nary: I think it's an archaic term from probably the 50's. It probably doesn't apply. Nichols: The reason for taking out the 10, 11 and 12 is 10 was-to take 10 out really reflects kind of the separation that has occurred between the Police Department and how (inaudible) existence in there and is appropriate so we really aren't directly, the City isn't directly involved in how (inaudible). Secondly, the citizens on patrol volunteers, these are all under the Police Chief's law enforcement (inaudible) personnel authority to (inaudible). McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: What is, Chief, what is a background check? I mean, I went through one background check for a Meridian Speedway beer license and I had three agents come and interview me. What is a background check for this? Worley: Madam Vice President. Mr. Bird. In the terms of this, it is merely a records check through the Department of Law Enforcement to determine if an individual has a criminal record. It then becomes an issue of is that criminal record sailing up to the license being applied for. So, for example, you're applying for an alcohol permit and you have a conviction for distributing alcohol to minors, that would be grounds to deny a permit. If you have a conviction for-help me Mr. Nary or Mr. Nichols-something that- (inaudible) Worley: There are some other things that may not have any bearing on doing that. It's similar. You have a DUI conviction. Well, that doesn't have keep you from being a precious metal dealer but if you have a conviction of selling stolen property, then yes it does. So you have to interpret those. I think that's what Mr. Berg is asking us to do. Bird: That's what I'm pointing out now. What you just told me, I think you guys-I know it's a more burden on you but you're the ones that are capable of doing it at a, you Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 32 of 57 know, better job because this is something you deal with all the time where the Clerk's office probably doesn't even know how to get into some of this stuff. McCandless: That was my question. Would the Clerk's office have the same way to get that information that you do? Worley: Madam Vice President. Yes, they do. They-actually, what we're talking about here is, we're talking about the same report coming from the State Police. It's a matter of who does it go to as for the Clerk because legally it can go either place with the way we're setting up the ordinance. McCandless: Actually, what you're saying is common sense. Worley: Well, it pretty much is. My concern is in somewhat mitigated-well, actually, a lot, by reading the categories here because, as I say, these are categories that I would want to know about in any case. I guess I'm coming from a little different perspective from a city that licenses a whole bunch of other things and the Police Department is not involved in them because you begin to run into some areas where, as an example, hot dog vendors. It is probably not defensible that the Police Department is the one who says yes or no on that type of a thing. McCandless: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Why couldn't the Police Department give an opinion to the Clerk's office and the Clerk make the call? The Police Department says we would recommend not to approve or deny this and then leave the Clerk to make that decision and give a reason to do it or a reason not to do it. He can since he's doing it. Worley: Madam Vice President. I think that's probably what we're talking about because if the-I guess in somewhat what you and I had discussed and me not being aware of what the limitations are of the ordinance that we're talking about, what I had proposed in my comments back to Sharon was that the reports would come back to the City Clerk's office and it wouldn't be the funnel for every single license but those that met a certain class would come to us so that we could review them just as, sayan applicant for a fire alarm installer, we may want to have that reviewed by the Fire Department before it was approved. McCandless: So that would be at the City Clerk's discretion? Worley: Well, the City Clerk- McCandless: Would it be sent to you, I mean. Worley: It wouldn't be at the City Clerk's discretion. It would become from a list of a sub-set of the overall applicants that came in. That being said, that was my error in not knowing exactly what we were licensing because, as I say, everything that is on the list Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 33 of 57 on this ordinance that's in front of us is something that I would ask the Clerk send us before they approve it. I think the concerns are probably moot at this point, if this is the limitation. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: A couple of things. I guess my mindset is, if we're going to do a somewhat of a clean-up and amendment to an ordinance, let's clean up all of it even if it doesn't necessarily relate to what we're talking about. I don't have a code book. I just have what's on our computer, which I don't have in front of me, but I don't know if itinerant merchants is defined. I don't know what that means. It sounds like somebody who sells something door to door but I don't know if that's what's intended. (inaudible) Nary: Is it defined somewhere else? Nichols: It's defined in the Code Book. We haven't been really pushing it. We've been trying to push it to the other permits like vendors (inaudible) Nary: Well, I mean, you have terms in there that are defined and are applied of we have terms that we don't need and it just really (inaudible). (inaudible) Nary: I would imagine it is. We have, in the Boise City Code, they have dog and pony show so everybody has these kind of terms. Nichols: But we require (inaudible) Nary: We still have opium dens in the Boise City Code but not a big problem anymore. Obscenity Act is still kind of the same thing. I'm curious, again, because I don't have the whole code book in front of me but Section A of 316 talks about these are the seven to twelve to nine or however many we end up with types of businesses that require a license. 316 DE has different information as to what requires a license or criminal history check to be done. Again, I don't have a Code Book to determine if these are defined but where the licensee-it says it's A where licensing gives access to secured area or information. It doesn't say whose secure area. I'm sure Mr. Bird's business is secure area but that's not something we're going to license. You know, we need to make sure we're clear. Does the licensee exercise supervision over children? Again, that sounds like day care licensing but also, at Fred Meyer they have a play area for kids that someone supervises the children. Are we going to license those people? Probably not. Probably not intending to do that. We also have people that supervise children at the pool or at the parks. Now, do we want to license those people or do we Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 34 of 57 want to do criminal history checks? That's fine but I don't know that that's what's intended by the wording in here. Where the licensee has access to homes and/or businesses, there are solicitors and such that may have access to your home that maybe we're not talking about the Sear's repair man. We may be talking about something else but I don't know what that is so, again, I think we just need to be clear. The other thing I don't see in here, I like how it's cleaned up a little bit in the 316 E as to-this appears to me with what's submitted as well as what is suggested to be amended, is how we do it, how we've done it and how we want to continue to do it. That's what it appears and that's fine. The other thing I don't see is that there isn't any appeal. I would think that it would make some sense that, it may be implied, but if the Police Chief or designee makes a recommendation and Mr. Berg's office concurs and denies the license, do they have the right to appeal to the Council because the applicant says how it was applied was unfair or it's not reasonable. I mean, it does talk in here in 316 D, it's just a paragraph, it says that the City Clerk and the Police Department shall develop a valuation guideline. Obviously, someone should have the ability to be able to say, you're not applying this fairly, they don't like me, it's really they're hiding this under this perspective that it's not fair. Whatever it is. Somebody should have some ability to come and appeal that to somebody and it may not be the end element just to say the Clerk decides and that's it, tough luck for you. Just a couple of things to think about in going through that that you may want to at least give that option to somebody. We don't but at least it's something to think about. Like I said, I'm just a little unclear on 316 D and then the sub-categories under that as to how that really applies or what some of those things mean. Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: That's a draft of an appeal that we were simply trying to piggyback off of resources ordinance because there's was a tiny notch to get it in a hurry because we had these things stacked. We had a letter from the Statesman (inaudible) so this may be a round peg in a square hole and vice versa because that was from the Human Resource ordinance where we were looking at employees, which employees get a background check. Employees who have access to security (inaudible) versus employees who might (inaudible) direct department and exercise supervision over children, employees that could have access to homes and businesses and so that could probably be taken out or you could leave it in in the sense that it's only where there's a City license that applies to these things. You're authorized to do it because it's a City license. So, if later on, you did decide to license daycare then you would have the right to find out if the applicant has abuse in their background. If you licensed (inaudible) you have the right to say they can. So you can tell us to take it out and we'll take it out or you can leave it in (inaudible). If we're going to do a cleanup, probably taking out some of the activists out of there unless you're going to pull some rope there. (inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 35 of 57 Nary: Maybe it's (inaudible) 60, 67 free love kind of thing. Bird: It might take from use in 60's and 70's. Corrie: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Under Section 4-3, in the cross side it said the applicant, require the applicant to submit a set of fingerprints. Do they take them down at the Law Enforcement Academy or do they have to get them from PD? I know you wouldn't take them unless you want to learn how. Berg: Madam Vice President. The current status, Mayor, is when they come in for their application, we give them a card that says Meridian PD on it and we have them take that card down and get fingerprinted. They pay for the cost of the fingerprinting and that card is kept by the State. Nary: The State actually does the fingerprinting. Corrie: That's what I was thinking. Berg: I just want to make-we need to make it cleaner. If they go to the State and I don't know if they do process or the ability that we may to change that process or procedure with PD with their new facility or if they want to get involved with that. The idea we had, it was a cost to them to get the license and they went and got it at the State. (inaudible) Berg: Just one other thing. This background check is an important part of some of these applications. It's not the only item. Just because the Police says it's approved doesn't mean that we issue a massage license. They have to have a certificate. It is a heavy weighted approval that we want because if they don't approve it, there's a valid reason so we're not going to issue a license because they didn't want it. It is some several other requirements that's needed for some of these licenses but the weighted response that we'd like is if the Police has a problem with this applicant. Worley: Madam Vice President: If I can address a couple of issues. One in the handwritten notes here on Page 3-4 under 316 E, these are Sharon's comments, right? Nichols: Yes. Sharon and I kind of went over them. Worley: Okay. So we'd like we address that shall approve or deny and then based on our discussion that we're not actually approving or denying. We're making a Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 36 of 57 recommendation. To follow up on that, frankly Mr. Berg, I don't think it's a problem if the information appears in the file because criminal history is public record. Berg: Anybody could ask for a criminal record on- Worley: Convictions? Nary: Yes. Bird: Is that right? McCandless: I didn't realize that. Corrie: I got an e-mail address that I want you to take home with you. It's an FBI check and see if you're on the list. Worley: And further, Madam Vice President, it would be my recommendation that 316 D either be taken out or moved somewhere else because it would be my preference when we're talking-what D seems to be only talking about is City of Meridian employees as opposed to general licensees that would be part of the HR process and the Police Department not be involved in saying yes or no to employees. McCandless: I thought it already was part of the HR process. Worley: I think it is now but the way it reads here, to me, would be preceding E, where E is the section that lays out the duties and responsibilities. I would read that to be that E is the duties and responsibilities of everything above it. Nary: Madam Vice President, I guess I would suggest that too. I mean, that information at some point in the future, if other types of licenses are required, you can always add information in later. I think at this juncture it's, I just think it's confusing. We can create standards of policies as to how those were to be applied. They don't have to be in the code to do that. The beginning part of Section A says these are the types of businesses and they're defined as to what they are, is adequate to make this work and I think D just makes it confusing. Bird: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Nary brought up an appeal process and I guess I've been under the false impression that everybody had a chance on a license or something like that to appeal to the Council on anything. I didn't think it had to be written in the code or in the ordinance. Nichols: Madam Vice President. Members of the Council. (inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 37 of 57 Bird: I thought most of the codes and everything that I've ever seen allows people to come in for an appeal to the Mayor and Council. (inaudible) Worley: Madam Vice President, if it's not, I think it would be very good to be sure that that is covered because one that we had recently where an applicant was denied, some paperwork had gone to the Clerk's office. The individual came in and complained to them. He was told to go to the Police Department because they were the ones that denied it and we're saying, no the paperwork went to the Clerk's office, they have it so it really was not a good service to that particular individual. As it turned out, there wasn't any basis to deny him anyway. So, the citizen, we collectively gave the runaround to for no reason. Nary: Madam Vice President. Again, I don't have the code in front of me to look but really they'd be appealing the denial. Not the background check itself. So, you're right. Probably that's where it's at. Berg: (inaudible) specific license in the code book because I know that fireworks permits and a couple of others that I had to deal with, they (inaudible) the appeal process. So, it may be (inaudible). McCandless: Mr. Nichols, do you have the information to do that? Nichols: Madam Vice President. Thanks for asking. (inaudible) see if I have it. We will double check the code for an appeal process and make sure that there are licenses in there. I would take into account the handwritten notice on the draft but where it talks about (inaudible). We would delete the proposed 316 E and change (inaudible) Nary: I think just to clarify (inaudible) itinerant merchants and delete the Obscenity Acts. If we don't have (inaudible) merchants, either write one or delete it. I mean, it's either one or the other. Berg: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Berg. Berg: Just a couple of comments to (inaudible) with the Chief. I know you want to omit D but in the paragraph that talks about our departments creating and developing the evaluation guidelines for (inaudible) process. Nary: We can do it without appealing the code. Berg: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 38 of 57 Nary: I think-we probably should do that but I don't know if it has to be in the code. Berg: And then I noticed that it did in the comments that Sharon had written, the Chief of Police shall recommend. Do you want specifically the Chief of Police or designee or Meridian PD or- Worley: My recommendation is say Police Department. Berg: Because we use the Police Department throughout that (inaudible). Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: The next question is what kind of process-we can certainly use (inaudible). The changes are probably not significant enough to affect pre-approval of (inaudible) but there's a possibility we can pass it to the next and send it off to review and they might say it's different but it has all the requirements (inaudible) but there is that possibility that we pass is, it's approved and we send it off and we send some people down to get fingerprints done and they say (inaudible). Corrie: It probably would be wise to show it to them and let us see if it's okay and then we pass it. We did before and they turned us down. Nichols: Madam Vice President. We submitted this one to them. I can't recall the turnaround but it wasn't too bad. It was a couple of things so that wasn't too bad. (inaudible) McCandless: Anything else on that? Nary: I do want to say that, Madam Vice President, it's a lot cheaper (inaudible) be responsible for their department at all if we felt there wasn't (inaudible) that determination. McCandless: All right. We'll go to Issue #7. That's the discussion of Pre-Council Meetings and starting time. Mr. Nichols. Issue #7: Discussion of Pre-Council Meeting/New Starting Time - B. Nichols Nichols: I don't know why I got this project other than I submitted a proposed ordinance based on your prior discussion. Just to let you know what we did, we looked at the Boise City Code. I looked at the Nampa City Code in terms of pre-council issues and that's on the existing Meridian Code by amending it to provide a starting time of 7:00. Also to provide the ability to move, postpone or cancel the meeting. The statute only requires that you have at least one (inaudible). It's really a policy decision for the Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 39 of 57 Council to have pre-council meetings and use that to try to shorten the meetings or make the meetings go better or just (inaudible). For historical purposes for Councilman Nary, when we changed the ordinance the last time, we moved to move 7:30 to 6:30 starting time because we had been doing a pre-council at 6:30 and Council meeting start at 7:30. A lot of times the pre-council meeting consisted primarily of going through the agenda then turning (inaudible). But there were meetings where they would finish the pre-council meeting at 7:00, five to 7:00 and we'd have 35 minutes to be here with, you know, visit and enjoy each other's company. It wasn't necessarily a time where we got the public's business time. So, that ordinance change started the meetings at 6:30. They also, the Mayor would also and the regular agenda item of adoption of the agenda so the (inaudible). Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just to add to that, we also opened a department (inaudible) at the beginning of the meeting to try to get some of those things done and kind of looked at having 7:30 as a kind of starting time to do public hearings. You can see that those aren't working out very well right now. Maybe it's because we have a lot of discussion with the department reports where maybe we need to have more memos than (inaudible) things like that. Bill and I talked this afternoon about a lot of it. I do want to say I'm sorry I wasn't here for that discussion at the last workshop because I probably would have voiced my opinion on a few different things. I guess I'm concerned that-the reason we have public meetings is for the public and the accessibility for them to come to listen to your decision making process. My voice is to go and make sure that we don't get into public hearing situations with the pre-council meetings because that's what needs to be talked about so the public is all there and hear that and making sure we don't waste time. That's the reason why we went to the 6:30 meeting so we didn't have that gap in time and didn't have anything to discuss. I think that a lot of department heads can probably work a little bit better if they had most of the information in front of you and you had inquiries, you could ask. If not, you know, that maybe-I think Gary's been doing a good job with his memos creating a motion for you saying all the things that need to be in there if you approve what's on there. I think those have been going really well. I think maybe more of that stuff on the departmental reports or the contracts or the information that really does have concerns of. I think anytime you have a new council, the department heads are trying to feel how you want things. It's not just five new people because some of them have been there for a while but some of them are new. Some of them are trying to gel so you're trying to figure out what everybody wants and I think that's kind of a learning- ***End of Side Three*** Berg: --and how it (inaudible) complex. So, I think those are kind of the important things. The next thing I need to bring up is as far as the pre-council is making sure we notice them properly. The one's that's going to be going on because we are going to Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 40 of 57 have to notice those. Agendas and what you're going to be discussing and make sure we do it in plenty of time so people can get out there and if they want to come to the pre-council, they can. It's been kind of easy to have the current ordinance in place because it's just one meeting, we start at one time and we have the agendas posted. What we're looking at is kind of two meetings down in one day. That's my department. We just need to make sure we follow that so we don't get into problems and also doing the minutes, making sure we do the minutes according to the way you want them, discussion, make sure we keep the project files in order, whatever discussion. I know we talked something about water, rates, and pre-council meeting and make sure we get that consistent with the information we have in the project files, which I know (inaudible) that issue. So, that's some of my concerns that I just wanted to address because I didn't get a chance to be here at that meeting. I don't think there was anything else I kind of threw up in the air. Sorry, Bill. I guess my perception is making sure we have them for the public so they're aware of what's going on. Bird: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: I, for one, as Bill said, I went through the pre-council meeting. I thought they went real good. We just ran short and then we decided to do it this way. At that time, we were only meeting twice a month. The agenda's got-I, for one, would like to see us and I think the public would like to see us and I know our staff would like to see us average at getting out at 9:30 or 10:00 every night and being out of here. I think by going to four nights with a pre-council meeting-Gary had a real nice report from Nampa. I've been to two of Nampa's pre-council meetings now and I think they run it very good. I think the Mayor can-what are we giving? An hour or whatever we can give him, he can set the agenda and we can get in and get a lot of this stuff that we're doing right that we're spending three or four hours on the second Tuesday discussing that can be taken care of in these pre-council meetings, get ready and then we can go through. Another thing I like about Nampa, they go from 7:00 to 8:00 with their old business or their standard business. At 8:00, pubic hearings start. Baby, they start and when they have a quitting time, they quit. I would certainly like to give it a try. I don't know how the Mayor feels or Cherie or Bill but I'm for working out the time through the pre-council, how long it takes or anything or needing the time for the regular Council meeting. I feel if I go in to one extra Tuesday, which we spend down here anyway, we'll be getting some official business taken care of and that's going to shorten our agenda for the rest of the month. Nary: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would concur with Mr. Bird. I guess what I envision is what we're doing tonight and we do every second Tuesday, we would do in pieces over four weeks because not all of them have to be heard ones. I guess the theory, which mayor may not play out, Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 41 of 57 but the theory is if we have four meetings a month and we have a pre-council session, which some weeks may be an hour, some weeks may be two. I think next week we're coming at 4:30. Some weeks it may be a half an hour. There may be adjustments to these types of things just depending on what's occurring or what information. What we would be gaining is we wouldn't have-although it's sometimes nice to have this meeting that's a little less preparation intensive, we would be more efficient in getting our work done every week. We wouldn't have a meeting where we couldn't have a public hearing. We wouldn't have a meeting where we couldn't make a decision. We would have it every week. We could set things over but sometimes, at least I've seen in my short time here, there's things that because of the way our schedule is structure that although we could certainly take care of it next week, next week is a meeting that we can't make a decision at so we have to set it over for two weeks. The fourth week is the meeting where we don't land use things, although we may have something that's a consent item that needs to clear up a couple of things in it. We could put it on it but we can't because our structure prohibits that. If we just met every week as a Council meeting with the ability to cancel a meeting if it's necessary, if we don't have a quorum, some of those things that weren't so confined by our structure, I think we would eventually become more efficient in getting things done. It will take some time. It's like anything else. I'm sure Mr. Bird would concur that every time you change something, it takes a little time to get used it but I think if we simply just met every Tuesday and had a pre-council session, I agree, Mr. Berg, it's going to be a little change for awhile in making sure we notice up a pre-council as separate agenda items but, again, it just takes getting used to and I think it's going to be fine. I just think we would get away from being so stifled by, well, we can't do it next week because that's the meeting that we don't do anything at and we need to talk about it so we could just really be more efficient. Then, again, the end result, hopefully, we'll be done most nights by 9:30 or 10:00. Instead of having two nights a month that we're really here until 11 :00 and two nights a month that we're here until 9:00. We'd really rather have it kind of the same. McCandless: When have we ever been here until 9:00? Nary: Maybe tonight. Corrie: Madam Chairman? McCandless: Mayor. Corrie: I have a question. Then we would on all four Tuesdays have a meeting like you said. In our pre-council meetings, could we not have what the department reports like they're asking for, contracts to be signed and this, put that on the Consent Agenda at that meeting and then before the meeting at the pre-council meeting, they can be explained to you what it is. So, when you get to the meeting, it's done. If you're not through there, you could also come and say, well, I'd like to pull this one off for one more question or I'm not quite sure. (inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 42 of 57 Nary: I think that's exactly what I would anticipate. We would have the opportunity, certainly if the staff felt this is something that is on our agenda for the regular meeting, let's talk about it so you know what it is. If we have concerns, we can discuss it. That's fine. Bird: That's what I envision, Mayor. In talking about the posting the agenda and stuff, the Mayor should be able to make up both the regular and pre-council agenda on Friday. They should be made up at the same time, I would think. We'd have to live by it. Nary: Madam Vice President. One other thing. One of the things that Boise does that may be a little different from what the Mayor is talking about but it tries to accomplish the same thing and maybe it's because the agendas are longer but, for example, one of the things that's done is everything is put on a pre-council agenda so there is no-if there's a problem or an issue, we don't have to delay it. The idea is that you're going to see it on week one and then you're going to pass it on week two. That way people have an opportunity to provide input and comment and we don't have to spend a lot of time, sometimes at basically having that same discussion as part of the meeting. You know, something got left out or something got overlooked and we could clean up those things. Again, it's more efficient. Corrie: That gives you a week to do it. McCandless: That's a good idea. Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: One of the things that Will and I talked about is, I think staff has been conditioned, if you will, to give a real complete report to you at the meeting. Sometimes that report is already in writing and you already have it. So, it does provide information, you pull it like Will was talking about, that it is there for you as a decision maker. It could be that what has to happen to speed things up is-I'll pick on Gary because he has got these nice cherry red and these nice memos. You say, we have a clarifier project at the Sewer Treatment Plant, you have my memo, are there any questions? Instead of going through and just saying where the high is and so forth. That requires- that's a change. It would require that the Council accept that type of change as what you were to do. We have the written memo from Mr. Smith. We had it in our packets saying does anybody have any questions and if not, we can go on and, like I say, it can be on the Consent Agenda or you can just simply hit that item on the regular agenda and the motion is made. McCandless: That would cut down on time too. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 43 of 57 Bird: If we've got questions, he opens that up and like you say, Bill, we've had the memo that we've read. How often have we had questions? Nichols: Let me give you another example. Jerry Mason goes around and presents these things in terms of hearings, procedures for land use. His big deal is always have the applicant go first and then staff. But when the staff goes first and explains it, how many times have we had the applicant stand up and say I have nothing to add, I accept the staff comments? If the applicant has to go first, they have to present the whole project. By doing it maybe not in the order that Jerry Mason and Will Harrington would, it actually moves it along a little faster. So, we're looking at ways to try to still get the work done and Gary's done-we're picking on Gary-Gary's done the hard work of putting together a memo, Brad's done a memo and Len Grady, somebody sent a memo to you that outlines this stuff to where you can read it and- Corrie: There also could be a speed up process too whenever the applicant gets up. I can ask is there anything different that you don't agree with of what staff's comments are. Be specific. If they agree with everything they don't have to get up and tell us again. If they disagree, they can tell us at that point and we can make a decision at that point. That's just having to listen to all these people. A lot of times I've been wanting to say that when they get up and they just ramble and ramble. Staff makes the comments, makes their recommendations. It's there. They've had access to it. I hope they have. That's why we're trying to get the staff to get to them in time so if we iterate to the staff and they don't have it then they're taking our time and theirs too and they should go over it. I guess that's one of the reasons they give this specific instructions or whatever it's called-but anyway. They see it before they come here. So, you could ask them the question just to save time. If they have something special they don't agree with, they can-that's just a thought. Nary: Madam Vice President, I was just going to say one of the things that I guess the hope would be is we've had a couple of times recently it's just some minor, technical things in a report or recommendation that just need clarification. By having-like I said, if we have a pre-councilor something like that, we can clear up those things without it have to take up 20 minutes of a discussion about it because staff's going to see that. The other thing I would suggest is if we do this, we could pass an ordinance any time we want to but we don't have to implement it the next week. I mean, we can put an effective date that's a month away to it gives the staff the time to adjust to that change because is you're going to need to have a pre-consent type of agenda or something to bring our attention to the week prior to us actually having it as an agenda item. Well, that's going to take time for all of the departments to adjust to that type of thing. So, I really wouldn't want to have an ordinance change on one Tuesday and implement it the next Tuesday. That's not very fair or reasonable to expect that. We can set that time a month away or whatever so that we at least give some time for the adjustment. Again, the hope it to clear out a lot of these little things so we don't spend-you know, ten minutes doesn't seem like much but if you do it five times there's an hour that we spend so the hope is to get rid of some of those things by doing this. Again, sort of even it out. The end result is sort of an evened out kind of meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 44 of 57 Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: I need a clarification. I want to make sure that we get on the same page. Councilman Nary, are you thinking that we should be able to do land use hearings in each of these meetings? Nichols: I do. I think we should just get them-we don't need to delineate the one meeting separately or different. If the land use applications are available to be heard, then we should hear them because the idea is we're going to spread these out over the course of the month and not just hear them all on the two-week one. So, we end up setting it over to two or three weeks instead. Corrie: If we're having four meetings, we hear everything rather than two meetings. Bird: If we've got four official meetings that we can decide upon that's why I agree with Mr. Nary on having an all-the reason we went to the last one as a non land use was because-you know, we had the second one as a workshop so we jammed everything on the first and third one and we couldn't get the normal stuff done. So, we said we'll just take the fourth one and do our normal stuff. Now, by spreading it out over four weeks, I think we can do it. At least that was my thinking is to go back and have land use on it. Nary: I think we just evaluate it by, you know, after four months or six months or whatever and see-I mean, if its not working, we'll find a way to bring that up and figure out how to do it different. I just think we need to evaluate it at some point to see how its gOing. Corrie: Do we want to do that to start the meetings at 6:30 and do that evaluation or do we want to have that, say a pre-council meeting at 5:30 start and leave the meeting at 6:30 where it is now without changing anything or do you want to change it? Whatever comes up, as far as I can see, you're going to have 30 minutes. That's all you're going to take and we can have the meeting start at 6:00 or 6:30 and be done. If it's going to be a long report then do it in an hour. I'd have to set that agenda accordingly so when we get started I've got something else in my report (inaudible). Bird: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would like to see us start a pre-council at 6:00 and I believe, Mayor, if the departments and yourself work it out, I think we will probably at least take up 45 minutes and then give us 15 minutes then start our meetings at 7:00. It's easier for people, working people, to get home and eat and stuff and get here at 7:00 for our regular Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 45 of 57 meetings than it is 6:30. I would be in favor of starting at 6:00 and hoping we went through 6:45 and have a fifteen minute break and get set up up here and go with that. Start our regular meetings at 7:00 and be out of here by 10:00. Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: The way I've got the draft and the wording (inaudible). But we've got it starting at 7:00 and that gives the Mayor time to adjust the pre-council meeting to whatever the pre-council agenda is. So, we can set the 7:00 pre-council meeting anytime as long as he gives the required number of hours notice and start there. So, I think, also we talked about Friday for the agenda but, really, I think (inaudible) pretty well set by about Tuesday or Wednesday (inaudible) finished pretty much all the stuff (inaudible). Madam Vice President, just one other historical note. One of the other reasons for the court to(inaudible) Council member McCandless. I'd rather know that my Tuesdays are going to be taken up instead of discussion (inaudible) Thursday or Wednesday or Monday. We were having four meetings a month but we just never really knew (inaudible). Nary: Well, I think, Madam Vice President, unfortunately the Mayor and I sat through the change from the first and the third with P & Z with the second and fourth-and second. They needed an extra day and we needed an extra day and that's why the thing was set. Strategic Planning was like the fourth Tuesday of every month years ago so we could talk about different things that we couldn't talk about at the regular meeting. So, we kind of grew in baby steps in this. Tomlinson: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Yes, Frank. Tomlinson: I want to throw out one thing. What about the fifth- Bird: Don't even talk about it. Corrie: On those months that we have a fifth Tuesday? McCandless: We usually took the day off but lately, we've had to meet because of- Tomlinson: That's been my experience. That's why I threw the question out. Nichols: Madam Vice President, we did used to meet with the P & Z Commission on that fifth Tuesday. We haven't for a long time because we've used it up for special meetings. But we did use that to communicate with P & Z about ordinances and developing ordinances specifically and get more of feel of each other. That's what that was set but it wasn't set in an ordinance. It was just a special meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 46 of 57 Nary: Madam Vice President, I think one of the things that-I guess that gives us the three or four times a year flexibility to either meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission. We may want to meet with the Parks Commission. We may want to meet with the Department about a particular issue or problem. That gives us some flexibility, as well, to do that. We may just not have a meeting. Tomlinson: I guess that could happen. Nary: That gives us some room anyway. McCandless: Are we clear on this? Okay, let's go on to the probable Ribbon Cutting for Main Street prior to Dairy Days Parade. What are your thoughts on that? Issue #8: Discussion of Probable Ribbon Cutting for "Main" Street Prior to Dairy Days Parade Nary: I think it's a great idea. Bird: I think it's fine. McCandless: Where do you want to have that ribbon? Nary: Probably right at Franklin and Main, I'm assuming- Bird: That's where the parade starts the Dairy Show. Nary: So, I would assume that we would want to do it right there. I'm assuming the parade is going north on Main Street. Corrie: The parade is at 7:00. Nary: I would think we'd want to do something at 6:45, 6:30. Something like that. The signs are up and everybody has seen them but I don't know if really a majority of the people in the community understand what that is. They probably are curious so it might be a nice opportunity to make it an event. McCandless: Okay. While we're talking about it, we have the stuff- Bird: --the wagon and stuff. McCandless: Wagon. Bird: Yes, for us. You bet. McCandless: And we're wearing western clothes. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 47 of 57 Bird: Western clothes. I've got a cowboy hat for you. McCandless: Is it going to fit me? Bird: If it fits me it'll probably fall all over your ears. McCandless: Okay. Nichols: Madam Vice President? McCandless: Yes. Berg: Since this is a Dairy board function, the parade and everything, somebody should probably contact them and make sure it's okay and tell them what you've got planned and send out a media release and all that stuff. I'm not volunteering for that, by the way. Bird: Do you know who from the Dairy board is running the parade? Berg: I believe Hans is on the application. Bird: Who? Berg: Hans. Nary: I have the application but I don't remember. (inaudible) Corrie: Have the actual ribbon cutting then just before the parade starts? Bird: Yes, about 6:30 up at Franklin. Is that okay? Corrie: That's great. McCandless: You aren't going to be here, are you? Corrie: No. Because I'm not going to ride that horse. Bird: You're not going to ride a horse? You going to be here? I might not be. McCandless: What? Bird: I've got a golf deal at Terrace Lakes that day. Corrie: The problem is (inaudible) ride in a wagon. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 48 of 57 McCandless: We can't have a City Council float without you here. Bird: Yes, you can. It's fellowship Christian athlete and if it starts at 10:00, we'll be done by 4:00. I'll be there. McCandless: Okay. So, we go for that and you're going to go ahead and contact- Bird: I'll call Marty tomorrow morning. He can come to the-he can set it up. McCandless: All right. I don't know what Mr. Nichols is going to say about this one but we have a discussion of resolution for cross Deputization of prosecutors. Issue #9: Discussion of Resolution for Cross Deputization of Prosecutors - B. Nichols Nichols: Madam Vice President. Members of the Council. I sent over a memo dated June 6th with a proposed resolution. It mirrors the resolution that (inaudible) Boise City Attorney presented to their Council. I haven't seen one for Garden City but I assume that they've got the same sort of thing under way. What I was holding this up before was their memorandum of understanding between Boise City, Garden City and Meridian on the extra territorial jurisdiction of police officers, which you will recall, we had passed a new ordinance to give the Chief the authority (inaudible) so, the special police (inaudible). So, this allows-if a Meridian police officer issues a ticket inside Boise City limits, then Meridian prosecutors work with that police officer (inaudible) Boise City police officer gives a ticket or makes an arrest inside of Meridian City limits, the Boise City prosecutor will follow that case (inaudible). I know I mentioned it at a prior workshop because the Statesman reporter thought it was really interesting. He keeps asking me about it, where is it and he did call and leave me a voice mail on it today. (inaudible) So, anyway, here it is. This is the deal. I wanted to bring it to your workshop before bringing it to you at Council. McCandless: Chief. Worley: Madam Vice President. We fully support this because the-what happens in the absence of this type of an agreement is if a Meridian police officer issues a citation within Boise City limits under the extra territorial memorandum of understanding, we then have to get that taken out of the stack and get it delivered to the Boise City Attorneys Office so it can be prosecuted. In this ordinance, we just turn that one in with all the rest of them and Mr. Nichols office pursues it and we don't have to give it special treatment. McCandless: It sounds like a no brainer to me. Nary: Madam Vice President. What it is, it clears up the authority of the police for taking care of (inaudible), the authority to prosecute and proceed is taken care of under Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 49 of 57 this. The City of Boise passed this resolution last week. So it's already taken of for Boise. Garden City has had issues in getting their process taken care of. If they don't get it done, it really impacts them more than anyone else. I think they will. It's just the process timing for them as well. I think it just makes it real clear as to where the lines belong for everybody. Bird: Sounds good to me. Corrie: What's your timing on this one? Tuesday night? Nary: Read it as a resolution and- Corrie: Read it as a resolution and (inaudible) and pass it. Worley: Madam Vice President. I'd like to-also I'll just give this information to the Council. I am currently in discussions with the Nampa Chief to do the same type of thing with Nampa. As our cities grow together, we realize the need to have a same type of agreement with Nampa. It will present a bit more of a challenge, particularly for the prosecutors because Nampa is in a different judicial district. We'll work those out as we go along but just to let you know that we are in discussion on a similar agreement. Nichols: Madam Vice President. I can see through that kind-it would probably be less of an issue for us than it would be for Nampa just because our firm prosecutes for the City of Homedale (inaudible). We can work it out. We can figure it out. (inaudible) It wouldn't be as big of an issue for us. (inaudible) We can certainly take those. (inaudible) We don't prosecute (inaudible). McCandless: Okay. Then down to the Mayor's report. Issue #10: Mayor's Report. Corrie: Okay. In five minutes, we're out of here. McCandless: I've heard that before. Corrie: The five-minute trick? McCandless: Yes. Corrie: To let you know, we are working on the web site. We just heard from a citizen today and made my secretary's day. He said that (inaudible) the web site, he liked using the links and the ability to skip the chalkboard presentations. She (inaudible) thank you, thank you, thank you. We have been riding the departments pretty heavy and they're getting things and we're getting another one set up with the chief so he can get some extra viewers. I thought you'd like to have that. You got a thing-did you get everybody a copy of this. The new (inaudible) electric code. Okay. I'd like for you to Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 50 of 57 look at it, see if you have any problems with it. If you don't, then we can tell everything that-we'd have to do a resolution to adopt it. Am I correct? Public hearing. But it's law(inaudible). Nichols: Mayor. Madam Vice President and members of the Council. The legislature passed (inaudible) authorizing legislation(inaudible). We sent out a memo some time back indicating that if we do need to adopt those uniform code but if there's any exceptions, any wrinkles to those codes (inaudible) know about those so we can plug them in because AIC came out with a lot of words. I think the electrical code is one of those that's covered. I can certainly check that. So, we don't just do the electrical. We've got all these others that we need to do too and I haven't received any feedback from the Building Department or anybody else (inaudible) there's any special exceptions (inaudible). Bird: The Fire Department also needs to make sure their code-I think they are up to the current life safety code and stuff like that but we need to look at that and we need to get all these codes. This electrical thing is a big deal. We need to get these all updated. Corrie: So, you're going to check where we are on this (inaudible). Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Madam Vice President and Council. What I can do is we can draft an ordinance that adopts these uniform codes because we haven't heard from anybody saying there was any exceptions. Bird: I think most of the codes we've got are adopted or are the current ones but we need to make sure that we are(inaudible). We do have to have a Public Hearing when we change these codes, if I recall right. Am I right? Nary: Not unless there's-well, I'm not an attorney so-sorry. Nichols: Madam Vice President. Mr. Mayor and Council. I don't know that we have to have a hearing unless there is a fee increase (inaudible). (inaudible) Corrie: Yes. There is a new fee. The current is $25.00 for a single-family residential new constructed service up to 200 amps, $25.00. The new fee is $120.00. (inaudible) Bird: That's 5%, Mayor. Nichols: Madam Vice President. Mr. Mayor. We have also adopted less fees, too, on that schedule in the past. In other words, we've had our own fee schedule rather than adopting specifically their (inaudible). Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 51 of 57 Nary: One of the other things that we've always considered in the past is what our neighboring cities have been setting up as fees. So that we're somewhere in the area of what the other cities are charging. I know that Harold said that Starr has gone to this new fee schedule. I don't believe Nampa and Caldwell has. Bird: We certainly need to take a look. Harold needs to find out what we should have like we did on the water and sewer and everything else. Nary: The one thing with our contractor inspectors is the more permit fee that IS charged, the more their cut is. Their percentage goes up proportionately. (inaudible) Nary: I know they're all doing a pretty good job right now but I think they're also getting a pretty good paycheck. Corrie: Okay. Well, let's-I will check into that and see-Boys and Girls Club Lease. We do need a resolution on that, right? On the lease? Okay. On the statute, they'll just send it in. We got a new lease but we got the lease from them, we gave them ours and then they made some corrections on it. Minor ones. I had a conversation with Bob Droza, who is their attorney, and also their executive board and there was some discussion about the 20 year or 30 year lease. They want a 20 year, two ten options. They don't want a 30 year lease. It was suggested by the group here and the information that I got from their executive board and their attorney, that's not what they want. So, the statute, the lease agreement-has everybody got the new one here, which is the same as the last one except that there was two (inaudible). It's in your box, okay. Well, there was only two minor changes. One, we didn't have the name of the Boys and Girls Club correctly and then on the dissolution, they had made a change that-okay, where's the dissolution. Nichols: It has to do with one (inaudible) and when they resolve it (inaudible) their assets- Corrie: Right. Okay. Dissolution, yes. Nichols: We changed that. We cleaned it up to reflect the changes that (inaudible). So, we will prepare a resolution (inaudible). Corrie: Okay. Bird: It's hard to understand it at all on (inaudible) Corrie: (inaudible) exactly like you said. They wanted to have a 20 with the two tens. So I'll-if you make the resolution up, I can put it on the agenda. Nichols: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 52 of 57 Corrie: Chamber lease the same way. We said at the Council meeting you wanted the way the old one was. Nichols: Madam Vice President, Mayor and members of the Council. Just yesterday, I sent off a copy of the latest draft of the lease. The (inaudible) liked it the way it was before. There's no need to have a right of refusal over there so I took that out. (inaudible) typical (inaudible) language from 1988 that we (inaudible) sent it to the Chamber President in order to go forward (inaudible) take it to the board. We don't need to have it on our agenda yet. Corrie: Okay, we'll just hold that until we get back with them? Nichols: Okay. Nary: The board will meet on the 20th. (inaudible) Nichols: Maybe I can prepare a resolution. Corrie: Yes. Okay. Procedures on Public Hearings. I discussed this with Shari and I just want to see if you all agree and then this is going to be the procedure, you're going to be the timer and after it going to the Boise City Hall, we're going to cut them off at a good sentence and they have to (inaudible). But, anyway, at Public Hearings, ten minutes for the presenter, three minutes for anybody with public testimony, five minutes for the presenter to answer any questions that are brought up and that's it. In other words, they've got ten minutes, the presenter does, he's got to do it in that time. Three minutes, that's it. We cut them off and five minutes to answer any questions by the presenter (inaudible). Nary: Do we all agree on that? Bird: I'm 100% behind it. Corrie: Okay, because if we all agree, that's the standard that's going to be set to them and we're going stick to it. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Madam Vice President. I would totally agree with that but one of the things, at least, when I've been doing that for the timing for the Comp Plan is that we've been in some long exchanges of questions and answers. That usually stopped the clock. The ten minutes was for them to make their pitch and then if there's a long exchange, that's our time. The one thing I would suggest and I should have brought it up when we brought it to the Pre-Council but if you look in our City Code, it requires that we run our meetings pursuant to a 1953 book called "How To Run A Public Meeting". I'm pretty sure we don't have that book available. I asked Mr. Berg for a copy. I don't Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 53 of 57 even know if it's in print anymore. We should probably either delete that code section or amend it to Roberts Rule of Order or something. Either one. It looks like the code section was implemented in 1955. It's never been amended. We don't even follow it. Like I said, I'm sure that book is no longer in print. Corrie: I read somewhere that the State Code or something that all meetings are under Roberts Rules of Order. I've read that somewhere. Nary: Unless we specifically create a different-we can do that different but I would say, you know, let's give it at least- Bird: I think the deal you're talking about is some of our organizations when I was a kid was under that. It's basically the same as- Nary: Oh, yes, I'm sure it's probably normal stuff but it's just (inaudible)- Bird: I'm sure you can have-Will didn't have a book on it? Berg: Mr. Bird, I don't have a current copy of that. Bird: I can't believe that. Corrie: If you don't have a copy, that means that our attorney has to do a (inaudible) correcting. Nary: Since we're doing some clean-up (inaudible). We'll clean that up. Corrie: I tell you, if you clean that office up, you can find it. Berg: I didn't have it before. Is it over here? Should I look for it over here? Corrie: Okay. On the contract for acceptance of the Rebuild Idaho, do you want to go with that? This is the deal where the contract-this also has to have a resolution but this is where the energy performance and that's-the one you have here and if you want to do it as an agreement, that it says the (inaudible) will identify and evaluate energy saving opportunities and then recommend a package with the purpose to pay through the savings. The ESCO will guarantee the savings meet or exceed annual payments to cover all project costs. Usually open contract term is seven to ten years. If the savings don't materialize, then (inaudible) pays the difference, not you. McCandless: That's where Mayor Nancolus- Corrie: Nancolus came and talked to us. If we have it done and we don't want to do it, Treasure Valley Partnership has a grant that pays that and then you just walk away from it. This is a way of where they come in and give you the savings and over a ten year period. You've had this for quite awhile and I haven't really pushed it but I want to Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 54 of 57 find out if you really want to do it. If you do, let me know and we'll do it in a couple of meetings and do it as a resolution because it takes that because it is a contract. You have to vote aye or nay and it's a voice on the contract. So, which ever way you want to do it. I'll bring it to you next month and you can say aye or nay. Okay. (inaudible) Corrie: Yes. Okay. I need some feedback on this. Keith has already talked to me. At the next meeting we can kind of-I think we have an executive meeting. We might just touch on it just before we come to the regular meeting. Just extend it. This is that request for 50-50 partnership with the Retail West we talked about at the Executive Session. So, we'll do it again. It does have property so it has to go into Executive Session (inaudible). Nichols: Okay. Corrie: What's the other one? I'm just about through. Bill Nichols, we need to talk about that lady that has that West Wilkins Ranch pathway safety issue. She's bugging me. Wants to know what we're going to do. So, I don't know if we can do anything. It's half of Meridian. Nichols: Madam Vice President, Mayor and members of the Council. This has to do with the pathway that was required as a condition of approval for the Lakes at Cherry Lane #9. Nampa and Meridian have said they want a pathway but it needs to be on an agenda, I guess, for your discussion so that Shari and her staff can present their side of it. Steiner Development can present their side of it. I will say that at Steiner, the letter from the woman objecting to the deal sure looked a lot like one that was generated by Steiner. We have Steiner would tile that ditch, that (inaudible) to have a pathway there. Fences along that ditch are (inaudible) appeared to me would be open vision fences until the subdivision ground (inaudible). Those are parallel to the ditch where the open vision high fences. Those houses would meet the requirement for having to build a vision fence (inaudible) security issues. Corrie: Well, we can make it an agenda item then. We'll do it-when do you want to hear it? Two weeks? Is that soon enough? Or the next week? I think it's a little early. The first week in July would probably be the best. (inaudible) Corrie: Yes. If you guys will come in to have that picnic out at the Water Plant, you need to have a side dish or a salad. Whatever you want to bring, if you're coming to it. Stop by my office and bring a salad or a side dish if you're going. Let the secretary know and we'll look at it. Bird: That's the 21st. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 55 of 57 Corrie: That's the 21st, that's correct. (inaudible) Berg: It's the same day as the parade. Corrie: Yes. Nichols: You should have an earlier for the calendar. Nary: I do. I just don't have the time (inaudible). I think I had the day- Corrie: We need to get your approval on the IDOC contract with the Idaho Department of Corrections. Is that what it is? That-to rent that building, that one room space? I neglected to put it on the agenda to get it-okay. So, we've got a put a resolution so that-you want to-does anybody here have any problem with that? (inaudible) Corrie: Yes. Well, it's $3,300 and something. Nary: It's 300 square feet at $11.00 a year. ***End of Side Four*** McCandless: Is there anything else. I would like to ask on this ribbon cutting. Would you-the president of the Council should do that because the Mayor won't be here. Corrie: What's that. Bird: He'll be here the 21 st. Corrie: Oh, yes, I'll be here. Bird: He was just kidding you. Corrie: I just said I wouldn't ride a horse McCandless: You stinkers. Okay. No problem then. Is there anything else? (inaudible amongst Council) Berg: I have a question, Madam Vice President. We have received an e-mail back from Stacy Kilchenmann about the budget workshop sometime in June or July. Corrie: July 16th and 1 ih. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 56 of 57 Berg: Okay. Corrie: The 16th is when you hear the presentation and the 1 ih is where the Council kind of gets together themselves. Berg: Its an all day- Bird: All day. Nary: It's all day both days. Berg: Tuesday starts at 8:00 and Wednesday starts at 9:00. Right? Nichols: Madam Vice President, just another comment. That Tuesday is also a luncheon at the Chamber. I know that you might want to go there. I'll find out what the topic is. (inaudible) (inaudible) Nary: I just haven't gotten a date back. That's why I was curious. McCandless: There's nothing else? Corrie: Madam Chairman, I think you have that contract(inaudible) EOC contract? Did you give it to him or did Stacy give it to him. I gave him a copy. Corrie: Okay. Do you want me to copy these? Corrie: That's fine. Yes. I thought we had already discussed it and done it and then it came back that you'd said where was it and I said I don't know. I called the Chief and he said I don't know whether we did or not. Nary: Maybe we'll do it right so we get it done. Bird: Have you signed it already? Corrie: No. I have never put anything on the agenda because we didn't have that document. (inaudible) Bird: Put it on the Consent and let's go. Meridian City Council Meeting June 11, 2002 Page 57 of 57 (inaudible) Corrie: --and I did put some stipulations (inaudible). McCandless: If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Nary: So moved. Bird: Second. McCandless: This meeting is adjourned at 9:34. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR / / DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK