HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 05-21MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 21,1 996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 7, 1996: (APPROVED)
1. TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: MICHAEL CASSEN: PRESENTATION OF CITY
SEAL:
2. TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SPORTSMAN
POINTS N0.5: (APPROVED)
3. TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER:
REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY MODULAR TRAILER: (REQUEST
WITHDRAWN)
4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION BY RON YANKS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
5. ORDINANCE #731 - OLSON-BUSH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 ANNEXATION:
(TABLED UNTIL JUNE 4, 1996)
6: FINAL PLAT: PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONST.:
(TABLED UNTIL JUNE 4, 1996)
7. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY 7, 1996: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PORKY PARK NO. 1 SUBDIVISION BY
RON VAN AUKER: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 4, 1996)
8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED FROM MAY 7, 1996: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE TROUTNER BUSINESS
PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 4, 1996)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR BALLANTYNE TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK
BY JIM BALLANTYNE; TABLED MAY 7, 1996: (TABLED UNTIL
JUNE 4, 1996)
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT BY
SANITARY SERVICES INC.: (APPROVE FIVE YEAR EXTENSION)
11. REQUEST FOR HOOKUP TO CITY WATER BY DAVID & BECCI CARMACK:
(APPROVED)
12. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT TO WINGATE SUBDIVISION NO. 2
BY DAN WOOD: (APPROVED)
13. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON SALMON RAP11~S SUBDIVISION NO. 2:
(APPROVED SIX MONTH EXTENSION)
14. LATE COMERS AGREEMENT FOR GEMTONE CENTER NO. 2: (TABLED
UNTIL JUNE 4, 1996)
15. REQUEST FOR A LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSE FOR DWAYNE WINK:
(APPROVED)
16. REQUEST FOR A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR FRED MEYERS:
(APPROVED)
17. REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF FENCE VARIANCE COMMITTEE DECISION
BY RICHARD & KAREN SHAW: (DENIED)
18. DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURE ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW:
19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. BID RESULTS FOR WELL N0. 17: (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 21.1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D.
Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Charles Rountree, Glenn Bentley:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Chief Gordon, Jim
Johnson, Anna Doty, Mike Wardle, Wayne Forrey, Martin Johncox, Michael Capell, Mark
Freeman, Moe Alidjani, Brad Miller, Ken Hedinback, David Carmack, Dan Wood, Marty
Goldsmith, Dwayne Winn, Richard Shaw, Karen Shaw, Janice Gass:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 7, 1996:
Corrie: Are there any corrections or alterations? Entertain a motion to approve the
minutes as written.
Bentley: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that the minutes be
approved as written, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED MAY 7, 1996: MIKE CAPELL: PRESENTATION OF CITY SEAL:
Corrie: Michael if you would like to come up here and explain what we are doing here to
the Council, I think they all have one of these seals and just explain what you have done
and what this was about. It has been a little while since we have had it and then we will
go from there.
Capell: This is the revision of the first draft of the City seal with the changes suggested,
replacing the established 1893 with the hub of the Treasure Valley. Making the margins
on the circle larger and adding the stars on the side.
Corrie: This was a scout project Michael that you had, and possibly have the seal for the
City. Does anyone have any questions or any comments on that. We will discuss that on
our meeting the 29th meeting on that further.
Rountree: I would have a question from Michael, what do you need from the City in order
to complete this, this is for a badge or a civic project.
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 2
Capell: That was already completed, I have been trying to get it approved as the official
city seal at this point.
Corrie: We will have further discussion then on the 29th and then we will get back with you
before July, you are going to be leaving July the 21st is that correct?
Capell: Well before that on some other things, I would like to get this thing taken care of
as soon as possible. (Inaudible)
Corrie: Well I doubt very seriously it will, we still need to discuss it a little bit further. We
tabled it for so long that we have asked that some of the changes be made and after the
29th we will discuss it again and probably bring it back on (inaudible) willing to go ahead
with that seal as such.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, considering the fact that we have received at least four letters for
items to be tabled on the agenda I would like to break with the agenda at this point and
offer a motion that we table those items requested, want me to name those items. It would
item 5, Ordinance #731, item 6, Final plat for Packard subdivision, item 8 public hearing
continued from the 7th on the Ballantyne Troutner Business Park, item 9, Findings of Fact
and Conclusions on the Ballantyne Troutner Business Park, and item 14, late comers
agreement on Gemtone Center No. 2 with the condition if there is anyone present that
wishes to testify for the scheduled public hearing for item 8 it be taken off table and the
hearing proceed tonight.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to give testimony on the
preliminary plat for Ballantyne Troutner Business Park by Jim Ballantyne at this time?
Okay we will continue that until the (inaudible)
Rountree: Our next scheduled meeting June 4.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that items 5, 6, 8, 9 and
14 be tabled until June 4, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM 2: TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SPORTSTMAN POINT NO. 5:
Corrie: Counselor, have you read the development agreement, any problems or
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 3
corrections with that?
Counselor: Yes I have, you and I discussed that today and I didn't have a chance to look
at it again but I have one minor comment, I had delivered it to the City, I think last Friday
and I don't recall what my comment was but it was a very minor comment, do you have
that Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council yes we did get those revisions from Wayne. We have
revised the exhibit B so it fits our standard requirements, it is still basically the same. And
I would ask that you authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign that agreement.
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Morrow: So then to clarify Wayne you are comfortable with the development agreement
for Sportsman Pointe No. 5?
Crookston: Yes, as it is changed.
Morrow: I would move that we approve the development agreement for Sportsman Pointe
No. 5 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that the development for
Sportsman Pointe No. 5 be signed and attested any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM 3: TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: BRIGHT BEGINNING LEARNING CENTER.:
REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY MODULAR TRAILER:
Corrie: Anybody here from Bright Beginnings Learning Center? Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I talked to the applicant just before the meeting and they asked that
request be withdrawn and they may come back after the summer if they still want to pursue
that.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we withdraw the request for Bright Beginnings
Learning Center for a temporary modular trailer.
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 4
Rountree: Second
Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we withdraw the request
for a temporary modular trailer by the Bright Beginnings Learning Center, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION BY RON YANKE:
Corrie: Council?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Shari, approximately what is the acreage or the
amount of land involved in this for the irrigation and landscaping?
Stiles: Councilman Bentley and Mayor and Council, I misquoted to you before on the
phone about what acreage it would be. It would be roughly, I believe it would be under a
half acre for the required landscaping strips that is not including the entire subdivision that
is only those planning strips that are required as part of the plat.
Bentley: Thank you
Corrie: Any further comments Council?
Crookston: I would just have one comment in my figuring with the strips and the statements
by the engineer, I think it was Gary Lee that said there were to be approximately 2000
square feet per lot, there are I think 13 lots. Then with the part of the strips that Shari
mentioned there is approximately 50,000 square feet in all of it. There is 12,000 square
feet along Pine and 12,000 square feet along Locust Grove and 24,000 square feet in
what is in the lots themselves.
Rountree: That particular square footage is for landscape treatment doesn't necessarily
indicate that it has to be (inaudible) landscape. Could be low maintenance shrubs, grasses
in an industrial area do we have a requirement for trees?
Stiles: Yes we do
Rountree: Within the development or just on the frontage?
Stiles: Within each development.
J
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 5
Corrie: Anything further?
u
Rountree: At this point I would be declined to agree with the variance request and indicate
that it might be something that we want to look at in our ordinance. There is a potential
change there in the future.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the way these findings of fact and conclusions are written I will be
voting against them for the simple reason that here we have a perfect example of an
industrial subdivision that is 23 some acres and there is no need for for pressurized
irrigation and confining that water right for all 23 acres to benefit only a few thousand
square feet over one acre essentially is my understanding these findings were written
based on technicalities and the issue here in my mind really is are we as a society better
off utilizing that irrigation water throughout the district which is how Nampa Meridian
operates, you cannot transfer water right, you can't give it away to (inaudible) it goes back
to the district and it is reallocated district wide. It seems to me for us as a City and City
Council to tie up water rights for 23 acres to benefit only an acre and a 1/4 of grass doesn't
make very good sense. So, from my perspective I will not be supporting these findings of
fat and conclusions as written. The second part of my comments would be is that we at the
City need to come to a method of dealing with these so that it is not having to go through
a variance process so that it could be dealt with efficiently and quickly and at the staff level
and not at the council level so that we are no longer spending time doing these things that
we don't need to be doing that the staff and (inaudible). So I guess the (inaudible)
granting the variance.
Corrie: Any further comments?
Rountree: I would just make one comment, can we salvage these findings to indicate as
such?
Crookston: I believe that you could you would some interlineations.
Rountree: Say what?
Crookston: That is when you write between the lines.
Rountree: I would think that item A on page 7 could be modified in such a way that would
reflect what Walt said and what I concur with. Item 12 could be modified to approved and
the decision statement could be modified to indicate approved. Or the other alternatives
have it rewritten to reflect what we are talking about.
Crookston: It is the Council's decision to have as to how they want it done. I would just
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 6
for the Council's information the way I have always done the findings is I talk to the
Council and they tell me what they would like to see in this case it gone down to a 2 - 2
vote so that is a tie and I talked to the Mayor and that is why the findings are written the
way they are.
Rountree: Well just to get us off center here Mr. Mayor I propose a motion that we have
Counsel revise the findings of fact and conclusions of the variance request to reflect a
favorable position on approving the request.
Morrow: Second (Inaudible) anything within the body of the findings.
Rountree: Yes
Corrie: To be a positive nature?
Rountree: Yes, to indicate approval of the variance request.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask a question of Counselor, in order to save time and
having to bring this back and take up another spot on the docket would it be possible to
make pencil corrections now and vote on them now and have you make the corrections
for a final printing?
Crookston: If that is what the Council wants to do I can do that.
Bentley: I think I would much prefer to see that done rather than have to bring this back
for another item at a later date and impose another delay.
Crookston: It is up to the Council.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as a point of discussion I think that Glenn what my perspective is that
these (inaudible) substantial stuff in here that would be eliminated or be done and I
suspect in terms of the precedence (inaudible) may not be a real advisable thing to do.
Bentley: That is fine it was only a suggestion.
Corrie: Okay, the motion is that this be recommended back to the City Attorney to be re-
written in the positive fashion rather than a denial form, any further discussion? All those
in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 7
Corrie: You will also have the opportunity to have all Councilman here for that vote too.
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY 7, .1996: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PORKY PARK NO. 1 SUBDIVISION BY RON VAN AUKER:
Corrie: Comments from staff at this point?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, we got a revised plat on this today and I haven't had time tp review it.
I still believe there are some issues that have not been addressed on the plat as far as
common lots, and we would need to review and see what else we needed. I think Charlie
was
Rountree: That was my motion before, we need to clear up some fairly significant issues.
With the recent receipt of the preliminary plat it would seem to be to be in order to table
it for appropriate review from staff.
Corrie: Also this came in at 4:00 this afternoon.
Brad Miller, 3084 East Lanark, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Miller: I apologize for getting it to the City late and I acknowledge that, we made every
attempt to incorporate all of the changes into there. Something that has been overlooked
which I am sure there probably is I would ask that we would go ahead and make a motion
and approve the preliminary plat with the stipulation that we would make those changes
to the final plat. I think there are always situations which involve changes of a preliminary
plat after it is approved and I don't have a problem with that at all. We have made every
attempt to address all of the ACRD as well as the City comments in that map. I do have
a couple of additional comments. The public hearing that we held two weeks ago, the
statement was made regarding the conditional use permit requirement for the subdivision
that it was a condition of the annexation and zoning of this property. I asked Anna to get
me a copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and it is interesting that on August
6, 1994 the City held a public hearing specifically to address this issue of conditional use
permit request on this project. It was specifically decided after much testimony that
conditional uses would not be required as a condition of annexation and zoning on this
project. You can find that on page 15, paragraph 12 of the findings. of fact and conclusions
of law. That was a decision that was already made by the City Council. So I would ask
that you approve this preliminary plat that you do not, that you exclude item 6 on Shari
Stile's memo on March 11 requiring conditional use permits on each of these lots. I would
also once again ask that we be not required to put sidewalks on both sides of the street
because of the industrial nature of this that we be required to do it only on one side of the
street.
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 8
Cowie: Did you say that was the findings of fact and conclusions on the annexation?
Miller: On the annexation and zoning correct.
Rountree: What was the date of that?
Miller: That was August, 1994. It is interesting, in paragraph one it says that findings of
fact it says that notice of the public hearing on the conditional use permit was published
so it was specifically addressed the conditional use permit. It seems to me that there has
been decisions made on this prior and I would like to see the City Council continue with
that decision that they have previously made. Any questions of me?
Rountree: Thank you for pointing that out.
Cowie: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony at this time? To be
perfectly honest I don't remember that far back to 1994.
Morrow: There was major discussion, this room was basically full of people testifying to
those very issues for that entire annexation and that entire area. That was one of the
things that we talked about in our last meeting concerning the conditional use process in
industrial projects.
Cowie: Well I think there is a better way to do it and I think we are going to have to look
at that method, it was brought to my attention last week and we will bring it to you attention
here next week. I guess it is the Council's decision.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, seeing how that I was not aware of the findings of fact of August of
1994 I am not prepared to vote on this without having a chance to review those.
Cowie: Further comment Council?
Rountree: I am ready to make a motion as soon as we close the hearing.
Cowie: Any further comments? I will close the public hearing, entertain the motion Mr.
Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this item until our next regularly
scheduled meeting June 4 until staff has an opportunity to review the recent submittal and
the Council has an opportunity to review the minutes of the meeting and the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of August of 1994.
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 9
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion? All
those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: That will be tabled until June 4.
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT BY
SANITARY SERVICES, INC.:
Corrie: I would invite the Counselor or Mr. Alidjani to start the public hearing. I will open
the public hearing at this time.
Moe Alidjani, 2930 West Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Alidjani: Mr. Mayor and gentlemen Council (inaudible) I am here tonight to present our
case, I really don't' have any addition to what we have asked for. If there are any technical
questions in regard to the operation I will be glad to answer other than that my counselor
Mr. Mark Freeman he wishes to say a few words. I am open to any questions.
Corrie: Any questions Council?
Alidjani: Thank you
Mark Freeman, 3550 West Birdie Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Freeman: Mr. Mayor, gentlemen Council, as you are aware I am the attorney for Sanitary
Services Inc., 1 believe this is the third time we have been before the Council on these
requests and we are appreciative of the opportunity to make a statement at the public
hearing. For the benefit of the audience we have requested a five year extension of
Sanitary Services existing contract which would expire without the extension in September
of this year, in other words we are requesting extension to the year 2004. We have also
requested a 3 year option at the end of the extension period. There are several reasons,
we believe that the requested extension is necessary, the first is as a result of the
tremendous growth in the City. It has required Sanitary Services to make significant
capital expenditures to keep up with growth. Purchased a number of trucks, I believe about
a truck a year over the past five years. Currently has a need to purchase at leas# two
trucks immediately to operate efficiently and as we have indicated to the Council
previously it is difficult for Sanitary Services to obtain necessary financing to purchase
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 10
•
those trucks because the contract term remaining is only 3 years and most of the financial
instutions if not all of the ones that we have discussed or contacted have required a five
year minimum contract term to finance those purchases. This doesn't mean Council and
Mayor that sanitary services is here saying that they are unable to continue to do the
contract without the extension. Sanitary Services will honor the contract regardless of the
Council's decision. And is capable of performing adequately as it has for the prior term of
the contract. However, it will not be able to do that with new vehicles which we would like
to purchase now. As a result of the growth we anticipate, assuming the 1000 homes per
year stays in as the projected growth for a period of time that translates to about one truck
per year. So every 1000 homes Sanitary Services is going to need to purchase additional
trucks. This is a problem that we will continue throughout the terms of its contract. Also,
authorizing the extension of the contract would allow sanitary services to not only expand
its fleet of trucks with new vehicles it would enable to upgrade it services through hiring
more employees and more efficient employees and also upgrading other services. You
may ask and I believe it was asked and discussed at earlier meetings if we grant the
extension will Sanitary Services be back here in five more years saying I only have 3 years
left to my contract will you extend it. I think the answer to the question is no, Sanitary
Service is now as opposed to 1 think it was 1993 when this contract was assigned in a
better position to anticipate the expected growth based upon the historical perspective it
has. We have crunched the numbers and the rates, the rate increase combined with an
extension of this contract would allow Sanitary Services to full perform throughout the year
2004. Another reason we believe it is a good idea for the City to extend this contract is
that Sanitary Service commercial and residential rates even with the recent rate increase
are still competitive as we have shown through the documentation that we have submitted
to the Council. We are one of if not the lowest in the categories. I believe that is a benefit
to the City and shows that Sanitary Service can provide quality service at a reasonable
cost and that is an additional reason to extend the contract. Since 1979 Sanitary Service
has provided dependable service to the City of Meridian. It is a locally owned business I
believe that should be a consideration for the Council. Sanitary Services has a proven
track record of responding to complaints quickly unlike a big company we have Mr. Alidjani
who is the president who is accessible seven days a week pretty much seven days a week
unless he is out of town, 24 hours a day. I believe that the Council maybe not all of you
but a number of you have had an opportunity to see Moe in work resolving complaints from
the cellular phone. I think you get a personal touch though Sanitary Service, that you are
not going to find through a larger provider should you decide to competitively bid this in
3 years. I think those are reasons to extend this contract for 3 years. Sanitary Services in
addition to providing efficient quality service to the City of Meridian has been a good
corporate citizen. Moe has given a lot through his business back to the City. Sanitary
Service collects refuse for City Hall at no charge, he collects, I call them the chamber
receptacles but they are actually maybe city garbage cans, throughout the City the nice
ones there are about 30 of them he does that weekly with no charge to the City or
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 11
residents. He supports clean up, yearly clean up days as requested by the City and
provides refuse hauling for free at that time. Moe through Sanitary Service also has a
history or supporting functions and projects which benefit our city and the residents and
businesses in the City. I think that you would be hard pressed to find a civic organization
or anon-profit group in the City of Meridian that hasn't received either some donation of
time or money from Moe either individually or through Sanitary Services or has or who
hasn't received either free or reduced rates for picking up and dropping off dumpsters and
collecting refuse. That is in addition to all of his other work through the Meridian Chamber
of Commerce, Dairy Days, parades and other civic organizations like the Salmon
Barbecue. There is one issue that I would like to briefly discuss that was raised at a
previous meeting. That concerns reference to the Cheny Lane Golf Course lease, I believe
there were some councilmen that were concerned that a grant of extension of this contract
might be perceived, you might receive some heat or the City residents may compare that
to the Cheny Lane Golf Course Lease. We don't feel it is a fair comparison that lease as
you are aware is for 55 years it was signed in 1978 it runs through the year 2033. Right
here we are here 12 years on a 15 year contract, there are 3 years left to expire: We are
only asking fora 5 year extension. Sanitary Service services benefit everyone in Meridian
it is not a golf course or a project that just touches a few businesses and individuals
Sanitary Service provides service to every single household and business that is actively
operating in the City of Meridian. The City controls Sanitary Service's pertormance and
they also control the rates they charge for those services. I have tried to think of an
analogy that might allow the comparison of the two contracts on this term issue and really
the only analogy that I can come up with would be if the City had given sanitary services
a contract for a half century or some long period of time like happened with the golf course
and let Moe and Sanitary Service set the rates without any put from the city and without
any ability of the City to monitor those and to keep the proceeds of those rate increases
then I think that might be similar. I don't think that comparison is fair and I don't think that
is the case here. I believe that as the Counsel for Sanitary Service that the relationship
between the City of Meridian and Sanitary Service has been beneficial to both parties.
Although t don't like to hear that term win-win all of the time and from realtors and other
people that are in the sales business I am not a salesman but I think truly here this is a
win-win situation for the residents of Meridian, the businesses, the Council and for
Sanitary Service, I think it is an opportunity for the Gity to acknowledge the type of work
that Mr. Alidjani has done and built the business and sort of give benefit to one of
Meridian's own at the same time of providing good collection and refuse disposal service
to the citizens. I thank you, any questions?
Morrow: Just a comment, Mr. Freeman, the comparison between the contract for here
which was 13 years which is longer than the normal for the valley which seems to be a five
year contract with a five year option. The comparison that was made by me is that in the
feedback from before from the general public is that when this issue was first brought
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 'I 996
Page 12
forward there was not an opportunity for a public hearing it wasn't presented in that
manner. And what my position is that we are not going to repeat the same mistakes that
we made in the past with long term contracts. Because we have such since grown out the
original contract that we are dealing with here was a 13 year contract when the industry
standard is five with a five year option. At the time it was presented to us before it didn't
involve the opportunity for the public to state their case and have some input. That is what
we are doing here tonight. That is where we are separating ourselves from what was
done in the past. That is what the comparison is.
Freeman: I appreciate that Councilman. Any other questions?
Rountree: Point of clarification, is it a two, three or five year extension?
Freeman: It is a five year extension. The contract expires on its own without the extension
in September of 1999, we are requesting five years from that date. So that is until the year
September 9, 2004, that is what the request is. Any other questions? Thank you.
Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony?
Ken Hedinback, 1683 Goldsmith, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hedinback: I read about this in the paper, Mr. Alidjani is an accessible person. His
company has done well I personally and commercially I was a sales manager for Meridian
Auto Sales and now I am in Mountain Home, I own my own home here and if I have a
problem it is always taken care of. Whether late service which I haven't had it has been
number one service all the way through the system. The taxes are paid, I don't' quite
know, I have been in front of you people before on the system it is kind of shaky but I am
going to tell you in my business I am a salesman, I heard you talk about that, but it is hard
to find good service and when you work with service you work with good people. That is
why I am here.
Corrie: Thank you, Council have any comments or questions?
Jim Johnson, 1083 N. Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Johnson: I am basically here to echo the remarks made by the gentleman before me, I just
caught the latter end of what he had to say in consideration of the extension of the contract
for Sanitary Service. I think one of the considerations we should have is the amount of
gratitude or for lack of a better term what has been put back into the community by the
owner and the organization. This is a person running the Sanitary Services and is aware
of the history of the City and can be sensitive to the needs. He is always there at charity
~ s
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 13
functions, at non-profit organizations to donate dumpsters to make sure the trash is picked
up to do the little things that make the community what it is, a nice place to live. In addition
to that there are financial considerations that have been brought out I am sure by people
before me about making the five year commitment and the impact the five years would
have with a lender looking at financing purchase new equipment and that sort of thing.
I am just here to say that as a customer both commercially and residentially Sanitary
Services I have been pleased with the service and I highly recommend to you as a Council
that you extend the contract for five years.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Johnson, any questions of Council? Anybody else from the public
that would like to offer testimony tonight? Council, comments?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have no further comments fqr the public hearing, I am prepared to
make a motion.
Corrie: Alright I will close the public hearing, entertain a motion.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant Sanitary Services Inc. a five year
extension to their contract moving it from September of 1999 to September 2004.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made that we extend the contract of Sanitary Services from September
1999 to September 2004 any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Moe, I might add that (inaudible) I got the two that I talked to you about and they
were taken care of (inaudible) thank you I appreciate that.
ITEM #11: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY WATER BY DAVID AND BECCI
CARMACK:
Corrie: We live over at 1705 West Pine my wife and family and I, we have lived there
since 1983. 1705 is just west of Linder, we are requesting two things tonight, one to be
annexed into the City and also to talk about the water. The City boundaries run directly
east of our property, right on our east property line and right in front also. If you had maps
you would understand. But it right at the concave where the City is sort of closed in around
us. We have resisted annexing into the City just simply because we have a well and a
septic tank and it works fine until about 10 days ago our well went out and it couldn't be
fixed it has to be capped, it is capped. So we need to hook into City water. The second
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 14
thing we are requesting is while the annexation process goes on I understand it will take
some time we request that the double whammy of the second $500 for the city water hook
up be waived while this is going on. Our intentions are to give and go ahead and hook up
to the city water and sewer and we need the water quickly. We have no water in our home
and it was hooked up but we need to get that finalized and then while that is going on be
annexed to the pity.
Corrie: Comments or questions of the Council?
Rountree: You do have water?
Carmack: We do have water, we have the permits and we have done plumbing and
everything is okay, it is just a matter now of getting annexed.
Rountree: You indicated in your letter to the City that you, at the same time through the
annexation process will be hooking up the sanitary sewer system.
Carmack: It is our intention to do that, to save some money, this one came as a surprise
and we hope to be able to save some money to do that (inaudible).
Corrie: Is Council prepared to make a motion?
Morrow: I don't have a problem with this.
Rountree: I would just assume that extra water fee be applied to the sewer hook up and
the annexation attempt would be my preference.
Morrow: I don't disagree with any of that. Mr. Mayor I would move that we allow the hook-
up to the Carmack's family for a one water hook up fee and that the annexation proceed
and that the sewer hook up be done as quickly as possible.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion? All
those in favor of the motion? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
(End of Tape)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I just wanted the applicant to be aware that he needs to pick
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 15
up an application and file for that annexation that we won't do it.
ITEM #12: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT TO WINGATE SUBDIVISION NO.
2 BY DAN WOOD:
Wood: Mr. Mayor and Council members I am requesting I had swale lots intended for, well
first off do you have a copy of the information that t turned into the City. It is my letter as
well as the plat and then something I turned in Monday was a letter with ACHD's approval
of taking out the swales and putting in subsurface drains. I wasn't sure that you had gotten
that one. It is dated the 15th. What I am asking for is originally when the Council
approved my preliminary plat there I was going to turn around and have two swale lots,
two that are kind o grated there on that plat. They approved that with some concerns
about this homeowners association maintaining those swale lots and at the time ACHD
had a policy well since then ACHD has changed their policy and now what they want me
to do is they want the homeowners to maintain the surface as well and then they will
maintain.
Corrie: Excuse me for just a minute, Mr. Carmack, would you be sure to talk to Shari for
just a minute. I am sorry Dan go ahead.
Wood: So ACHD has changed their policy and they want the homeowners to maintain the
surface and they will maintain the heavy duty subsurface of the swale lots. With their
additional changes they have required on my swale lots the point where I reanalyze it for
what they want me to do there I might as well put in the subsurface that way the
homeowners association won't have to be burdened with taking care of the swale lots,
paying the association fee to maintain them. I figure it is 8 benefit to them as well as to
everybody else not to worry about those swale lots. So what I am requesting is to basically
make those two lots buildable lots. One is 7500 square feet the other one is 9000 square
feet. That is what I was hoping to do tonight. Other than that, if there are any questions.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none, it appears that it meets our ordinances.
Corrie: Counselor, do you see any problem with that as far as ordinances are concerned?
Crookston: No I don't.
Morrow: May I ask, Gary, is everything here is fine as far as you are concerned from the
Public Works Department standpoint?
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 16
Smith: I think my associate Bruce Freckleton had a couple of comments that were
submitted on this request but it doesn't appear that there is a problem. There will be some
modifications necessary but they can be done.
Corrie: I did talk to Shari about this afternoon she didn't have any problems. Shari any
comments or any problems with this request?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I asked Mr. Wood to come and ask the Council for this just
because I didn't feel I wanted to make that as a staff level decision. I didn't know what
policy is as far as ACHD's policy. I haven't seen anything very definitive on what they
prefer and since these were going to add two lots to the buildable lots and take away
common area I would prefer that the Council acted on this change in the plat. pid you ask
Gary?
Corrie: Yes
Rountree: It looks like a reasonable request, it meets our ordinances, it meets the terms
or requirements for this particular subdivision zoning.
Morrow: I don't have any problem with it.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the approval of the request for a final plat amendment.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we amend the final plat for Wingate Subdivision No.
2 subject to the City Engineer Smith's staff recommendations.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION N0.
2:
Corrie: Marty?
Goldsmith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, we are actively going ahead with the
construction arld final plat recording on Salmon Rapids No. 2. But there is a possibility that
the time might lapse a period of one year from your last, your approval date would be
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 17
•
coming up here in a month or two. I just didn't want to see us go back through an approval
process or come back in front of you and thought a time extension would be the most
prudent thing in this matter.
Corrie: So you are requesting a six month extension?
Goldsmith: Yes
Corrie: Council any questions? Entertain a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we grant a time extension for Salmon Rapids Subdivision
No. 2 to November 5, 1996.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to extend the extension to
November 5, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR A LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSE FOR DWAYNE WINN:
Corrie: Is Mr. Winn here?
Winn: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I will make this very brief I applied for a liquor
license in 1978 and it came through this year and I tried all establishments in Meridian and
I couldn't place it. I had an agreement there at EI Zocalo's and the place was taken by a
divorce settlement. Therefore I have an agreement with Dean Mayes to use part of his
building to sell alcohol beverages. In 1980 they changed the law so that you. did have to
be open for a period of six months to retain your license. I would like to open this
establishment here, it will be open from 10 to 6, if I don't sell a drink that will be fine. My
intent is to keep the license.
Corrie: Alright, Council, any questions? Chief, any comments?
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council I did a background investigation on Mr. Winn and there
is nothing in his background that would prohibit him from having a City license. Also, his
intent to retain and put into service this license is required by State law end I have
checked with the alcohol beverage control people. Mr. Winn does meet those
requirements.
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 18
Corrie: Any further comments from Council? Entertain a motion on this request.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the request for a liquor and beer
license for Dwayne Winn.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that the request for liquor
license be approved, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: REQUEST FOR A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR FRED MEYERS:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Fred Meyers here? Chief?
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council, I also did a background on Mr. Fred Meyer and I was
unable to find any reason why we should not grant his license.
Corrie: Did you find him?
Gordon: No sir I did not.
Corrie: Council, any further questions of the Chief? Entertain a motion for a request the
beer and wine license for Fred Meyers.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the beer and wine license for Fred Meyers.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the beer and
wine license, any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF FENCE VARIANCE COMMITTEE DECISION BY
RICHARD AND KAREN SHAW:
Corrie: Is the Shaw's representative here?
Shaw: Mr. Mayor and Council I would like to appeal the decision of the fence committee
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 19
because I don't think it is a valid decision based on what they discussed with me at the
meeting. I would like it to be a five foot setback off the back of the sidewalk instead of a
ten foot setback as they agreed upon in their variance committee.
Corrie: Council, questions of Mr. Shaw?
Morrow: I have none, I have looked at his property and looked at the neighborhood, both
myself and Mr. Tolsma have. I don't personally have a problem with this.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have to admit my absence that variance committee meeting. I
would speak from the position of having served on a number of these and would reinforce
their decision of no closer than 10 foot from back of sidewalk for a variance.
Corrie: I believe that iwo of the members are here from that committee is that correct. Any
comments from the committee or anything different?
Gordon: No sir, although we have set a minimum of 10 feet and we have held to that
throughout the City to maintain, to try to maintain some type of security and also uniformity.
Ten foot has been our minimum as far as bringing the fences up to the sidewalks.
Morrow: If that is the case Mr. Gordon, in this particular subdivision based on my driving
through there, there are at least two other fences that are within the five foot range. How
do those get to be in that position?
Gordon: I am not aware of the ones that you are talking about Councilman Morrow but we
do have quite a few builders in the City that are putting fences up without permits or
variances. We are having a problem with those. I am not aware of any in this general
vicinity. When we find them the ordinance officer is sent out to contact them and then they
fife for a variance. I believe we heard a variance request the same day of Mr. Shaw's it
was under those very circumstances. The fence was put in at about five foot by the
contractor without any permit or variance of any kind. I am not familiar with the ones you
are talking about. But it does happen but they are not approved by us.
Morrow: So what you are suggesting is the ones that are there have not been approved
by anybody that you are aware of.
Gordon: Unless they have been approved by the Council, they have the appeal right which
we informed Mr. Shaw to come before you folks. You have the final say, you can put those
fences wherever you want. We have been holding them to the ten foot to try and get some
type of uniformity and security. It allows a clear view of the street for police officers also
for kids running up and down the streets, and sidewalks and cars backing out of
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 20
driveways, rounding corners.
Shaw: I would like to make it to your attention that it is not a site problem, nor would it be
a problem for anybody backing out of the driveway. I don't understand what the deal is
here about if it wasn't approved by anybody why if I go the legal route I get stiffed as far
as your ordinance goes. I made sure that I towed the line on everything and did it the right
way. It is up to you I guess.
Corrie: Unfortunately that happens, I don't know what, those that didn't do it I suppose we
could, maybe the officer can go out and find them and have them take their fence down.
We haven't got to that point yet but.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I might shed a little more history on this setback
issue for fences on a side yard. The subdivision development ordinance does not require
a developer to have a larger than standard size lot for corner lot within a subdivision. As
you know comer lots have front yard setbacks and side street setbacks that are the same
by City ordinance of 20 feet. In some cases the subdivision CC&R's will require more of
a setback, but 20 feet is a minimum requirements. Hence any property owner that has a
corner lot is subjected to a small backyard. So we field quite a few fence variance
requests to locate a fence within a side street setback area. When I first became involved
in the fence variance committee we were allowing and I know of several instances where
fences were placed on the property line within two feet of the sidewalk. After they were
built I saw and I think the fence committee saw that this was not a good situation. It left a
two foot strip that was not maintainable, it was a security hazard for people, pedestrians
travelling on the sidewalk and of course in some cases it could create a site problem. I
don't recall the instances that Mr. Shaw is talking about or the locations of the properties
that Mr. Shaw is referring to in the Clarinda Fair Subdivision but I will certainly check it out.
If variances weren't issued then I will make not to the Ordinance Enforcement Officer and
the property owners will be contacted to remove the fence or file for a variance. As the
fence Committee's present policy is that ten feet is a minimum encroachment or maximum
encroachment into that side street setback area. The ten feet again is property that is
basically landscapable property. It is not what you would call usable property by the
resident and that is a problem for the corner lot property owners. But as Chief Gordon
says it does provide pedestrians with a sense of security as they are walking down the
sidewalk and it provides very little if any line of site problem with travelling public in
vehicles. This particular case, there isn't a particular problem with line of site but what we
are trying to do is mediate between building a fence on the back of sidewalk and putting
the fence on the back of the sidewalk and putting the fence on the property line where it
is required by the ordinance. And yet this gives the property owner an additional ten feet
of usable back yard. When our building inspector does his final inspection for occupancy
I have requested that he leave a fence or a photo copy of the fence ordinance that
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 21
graphically illustrates where the fences are to be placed. I know a lot of times that this
photo copy doesn't get into the hands of the owner, someone else will pick it up out of the
drawer in the kitchen where it is place along with the request that all dogs have dog
licenses and information about trash pick up is also placed in the packet. Mr. Shaw did
approach as he said the fence committee of the City of Meridian and request a fence
variance which we appreciate. But that is some of the background on what we are trying
to deal with on these corner lots. The same meeting that Mr. Shaw's application was on
we also heard from a young lady that had a fence already built within 8 foot of the sidewalk
and the committee because of some other extenuating circumstances within that same
subdivision where she lives required her to remove the fence and place it at ten feet from
the back of sidewalk. I half expected an appeal from her to you for that request and we
haven't received that yet I don't believe. We are trying hard to .maintain a situation that is
halfway between the ordinance requirement and what the property owner wants and still
not have a fence out there against the sidewalk or in close proximity. I think in order to
resolve this problem it would be a simple solution to require the developers to increase the
size of corner lots by 10% maybe as a number, I don't know. But it is always the same
situation, it is always the same reason that we get a fence variance request. If we can
make that change in the ordinance a fence variance request would go away for the most
part.
Shaw: Mr. Smith I sure don't understand the safety issue that you are speaking of. I think
five foot is quite adequate for space between the back of sidewalk and (inaudible) if you
can jump over a six foot fence and jump five feet you are doing something.
Smith: Well we are not talking about over the fence, we are talking about people along
side of the fence, back in the corner of the fence. In your particular corner you have a
power transformer box that causes a jog in the fence that in the night people can hide
behind. It is a safety issue from that standpoint of someone walking down the sidewalk
and having an intruder jump out or I don't' know what you call them, somebody that means
to do harm to someone else that is on the sidewalk.
Shaw: You do realize that the fence on the opposing side is slotted and you can see
through it? On the other side of the power box?
Smith: Yes, you bet, I was out there and looked at it.
Corrie: Thank you Gary
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council, Mr. Shaw, I have no problems with you believing that five
foot is safe, but what is to say that the next that comes along thinks one foot is safe or zero
feet? We have reached a ten foot line as Mr. Smith said and we feel that fence, probably
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 22
95% of the situations as far as the safety. The ten foot variance allows you another ten
feet past what the City ordinance allows on each side of your property. So that is another
20 foot total in your back yard. We also feel that for corner lots that is sufficient, it allows
you something but stilt maintains us some type of governable ground if you will. So I don't
disagree with your five feet other than in your situation maybe five foot for you is
satisfactory. But somebody else might have a different interpretation. In this case I do,
I feel ten foot is satisfactory. It allows a safety area.
Shaw: You agree if I set my fence back ten feet and buy shrubs four feet around it 3 foot
high which is your maximum height for your shrubs in the planter area you want ten foot
there from the sidewalk to the fence, I can plant four foot around shrubs 3 foot high and
that is supposed to be safe? Do you understand what I am saying?
Gordon: I understand what you are saying but I can't control your shrubs.
Shaw: Yes you can, it says right in the letter.
Gordon: That is only in the site triangle, that is upfront on the corner, I can control your
shrubs there. Along the side there where your fence is to my .knowledge there isn't
anything that controls the size of the shrub.
Corrie: Council, any further questions?
(Inaudible)
Karen Shaw: (Inaudible) 3 feet for our shrubbery from you guys. Also on I believe it is
Northwest 7th corner lot the fence sits less than 2 feet away from the side street, it is going
into a new subdivision. I don't see how a two foot setback is different than what we are
asking for. Everything around us is completely within the limits that we are asking for.
(Inaudible) consistency problem. I guess that is my main comment is that we are not trying
to be out of the normal or anything. But I did want you to (inaudible)
Corrie: Thank you Karen, Council?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I think on the NW 7th Street that Mrs. Shaw spoke
about that is a boundary fence that comes out that is on the west side of Applegate
Subdivision that is adjacent to the sidewalk or very close to the sidewalk and that was
because of the location of the entrance street going into the subdivision and that fence is
between the sidewalk and the property immediately adjacent that is outside the subdivision
boundary. There is also a fence along Applegate Subdivision parallel with Pine Street that
was built I think it is a 6 foot fence and it is there as a result of a variance approval through
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 23
•
the fence committee that the subdivider submitted. We are trying to be consistent and we
are sympathetic to the property owners that have corner lots and trying to allow them
to use as much yard as possible. If we find instances where fences are in the sideyard
setback or the front yard setback then we make note of that and we contact the property
owner through our Ordinance Enforcement Officer.
Corrie: Thank you Karen. Council ready to make a decision?
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council just one short one, Mr. Smith has already hit on it and I
want to make sure that the Shaw's understand this. This is nothing personal in fact we
have more fence variances coming up it is a continuing problem. We are trying to maintain
some type of uniformity an there are places all over town where there are less and more.
Chateau is a good example of that and I am sure Mr. Wood is aware of that, they are right
down the side of the street down there. But that is because it is an arterial or a collector.
Cherry Lane out here it is right on the back of the sidewalk all the way out with jogs in it.
There are situations that just don't lend us any other opportunities. So, we could, I could
name off several throughout the City that don't meet these but for the most part on houses
we are trying to maintain that ten foot minimum. I also have a corner house and I don't
have a variance, mine are 20 feet back.
Corrie: Thank you Chief, Council?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we deny the appeal for the fence variance.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that the variance request be
denied, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 Yea, 1 Nay
ITEM #18: DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURE ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Corrie: Discussion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe this item is on the agenda for us to talk about when we are
going to release findings of fact and conclusions. I think in, and I asked the counselor to
research a recent decision by Judge Neville concerning an issue with respect to the City
of Eagle and the City of Boise and Brighton Corporation. Some of the comments that were
made would seem to indicate that some of this supposed controversy might not even be
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 24
•
relevant anymore. So I would like to have the counselor give us the benefit of that
decision.
Crookston: I have not read the decision, I have copies that were just made tonight. I
believe that I have a copy for each Councilmen and the Mayor. I believe that Shari made
the copies. I got the decision today at approximately 3:00 with other things I heve not had
a chance to even look at it.
Morrow: I think another comment is that tonight is a perfectly good example of with the
prior findings of fact they were released by whoever and the issue there was that they
were in draft form and very candidly from that a couple things happened. One is that
applicants will consistently try to lobby the Council essentially by some interpretation we
cannot speak to them concerning those issues. Tonight's set of findings is a perfect case
in point. The entire findings were instructed by the Council to essentially be redone. I don't
know what point that served in terms of the public being under the impression by virtue of
a draft set. It will be interesting to see if they are equally as well informed about the new
findings. So, I do think that in the case of and I will use Mr. Wardle's presentation with
Smith's as an example. The comment has been made that it shouldn't impact the time
frame by which we make decisions. I would disagree with that substantially. I am not
going to sit at this podium and listen to an hour of testimony plus testimony from staff,
applicant's, opposition, those in favor and then have a discussion immediately thereafter
concerning what my thoughts are because at that point in time I don't know what my
thoughts are. I need to think about the information and I need to review the information and
then I need to be in a position to come to some conclusions. That doesn't happen
instantaneously. So, from my perspective anything that is controversial in nature or
lengthy in terms of presentation I am going to consistently move for continuance until the
next City Council meeting then we can discuss it. Then we can instruct the City Attorney
to prepare findings based on those discussions which will again be presented at the
following City Council meeting. The change in the procedure the public needs to
understand that in some cases will lengthen the process by at least a minimum of two
weeks and maybe as much as 4 weeks. So at any rate I think there are pros and cons to
this and in many cases the findings that we get are approved by and ordered by the P &
Z in most cases they do an admirable job, rarely do they need to be amended and we
simply take those same findings which at that point are already public record and approve
them as prepared for us by P & Z. So to some extent I think this is an issue that is much
ado about nothing, I do think that the potential here for the public not understanding in the
case of a reversal of findings is one of the things that will happen by releasing draft form
findings that have not been reviewed by us as Council members prior to being released.
That is the price that we may have to pay so be it. The other thing is that the public needs
to be aware of or applicant's need to be aware of that it may lengthen the process and that
is part of the price that has to be paid. So, I would be interested in reading Judge Neville's
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 25
decision to see if some of his comments concerning public notice and those things as was
printed up in one of the local newspapers are in fact accurate and if they are that would
shed some light on the path that we may choose to take.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I think Walt has echoed and summarized well what we talked about
in workshops about the process. I believe that it probably will in some instances lengthen
the amount of time that particular actions are before the Council but I don't know that is
particularly bad, particularly for some of the more controversial and weighty issues that we
might foresee. I would anticipate that a lot of the straightforward issues and probably can
be continued to go through the process as they do now and still have an opportunity for
draft findings if you will or findings as they are proposed be available to the applicant's and
anybody else that might be interested to review recognizing that we as a Council are not
going to be able to discuss those issues with those individuals if they happen to call us
about them.
Morrow: If I might, in the case of some of those, even as they come before us and we
discuss them those discussions are not open to the public for further testimony. The public
needs to understand that.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I too have to agree with my two colleagues here. I would like the
chance to review this judges decision. This decision is up for appeal and I also agree that
if this decision stands it is going to make this whole point moot that we are sitting here
discussing. I personally don't have a problem with getting out draft copies, but I think part
of our problem is as Walt has stated I think the public had Mad a little misconception about
how things work. Maybe this will help, maybe it won't, the findings from P & Z sometimes
are adopted, sometimes we have to amend them. But they have to realize that until they
pass through us and are voted on that they are not the final issues. We pass them out as
draft they have to understand that is exactly what they are is draft. Also, as they have said
the process very well could be lengthened out. That is all I have.
Corrie: Any further discussion from Council. We will go ahead and have the Counselor
review.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Since the large majority of the findings of fact and conclusions of law are
developed initially by Planning & Zoning this is very important to our commissioners and
I tend to agree with everything that everybody has said here tonight particularly
Commissioner Bentley. I fail to see, I can't grasp the advantage we would be giving
anyone by releasing the draft document however. I can only see that as lengthening the
process. We have been cooperative as a commission in responding to requests
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 26
•
concerning issues that have gone before to the make up of the findings of fact. We
haven't met with these people or called these people but when somebody asks us about
it there has been discussion from time to time. Now if we are going to release draft copies
there will be absolutely no discussion from the Commissioners with respect to any last
minute efforts by a developer or an applicant to lobby us for a position on those findings
of fact. This is what is going to be the result of this. This article published in the
newspaper today could be those type of releases could be very misleading to the public
because they are not going to pick up that is a draft copy. They are going to pick up that
this is in fact what happened and I think they wilt read that and some people who may
have attended the meeting to get a copy of the final findings of fact may be mislead as to
what the actual decision is going to be. Because it may not come out in the form that is
was released in the paper. So I ran see some people being misled in advertently but what
is released early. That is my fear on the thing. If I can see the real benefit of releasing it
if someone could convince me that releasing this draft copy is going to benefit anyone
maybe I could see the the other side of the story. I really can't see that the way our
process works with the open hearing law. Everything we are going to do is going to being
the form of an open hearing. I did a survey, I called every City in the State of Idaho and
talked to the Planning and Zoning people or their representatives there about how they
handled situations like this. I made about 18 phone calls and I got about 18 different
answers. A lot of Planning and Zoning Commissions meet more than once a month. But
the only have one public hearing a month. So they will meet and have a public hearing
and meet again in an open session at noon or some other specified date and then they go
through the discussion process. Nampa has a real unique way of doing that, I believe that
they meet at 9:30 and 10:00 in the morning and maybe we could go to that. I wouldn't favor
that because our people are working, the public is working. There are all different ways
of doing this. I think our system up to now has functioned pretty well. I haven't seen
anyone give me an example of the way we are doing things now is detrimental to or
adversely affects the public in anyway. That is really all I have to say, I fail to see the
benefit, we are not trying to hide anything it is an unfinished document and where does
it end. Does it end with discussion notes, workshop notes, so those are the questions that
I have been trying to resolve in my own mind and talking to other commissioners
throughout the State and also members of our own Commission. We release the
documents and we know they are draft copies but I think some people on the other end
are going to be mislead. That is all I have to say.
Rountree: I have a question for Jim, Jim in your study did you identify any City's that do
release findings in a draft form?
Johnson: I couldn't get specific answers on a lot of that because 1 wasn't talking directly
to either City Attorneys or P & Z members, I was often times talking to City Clerk or City
Manager, whoever happened to be available at the time that I called. I didn't specifically
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 27
•
call for that reason. I called more to see how many times a month they met that was the
main purpose of my call and why they felt they had to meet more than once a month if they
did. Some cities meet once every two months. It just depends on the workload and what
they have to do. To answer your question no I don't have that information.
Rountree: But they did indicate that they had additional meetings or meetings at other
times to discuss issues brought before them in public hearings.
Johnson: Yes and they made it clear those were not public hearing meetings those were
meetings in an open session in order to handle the discussions that Walt was alluding to
that might take place immediately after the meeting for example.
(End of Tape)
Corrie: In summary what you are saying (inaudible) the fact that the decisions that the
Council will be making and for now will be in public forum there is not, they won't be going
back to the old way of hearing the public testimony and then directing the City Attorney to
draw up findings of fact and conclusions based upon that. They will all be getting
(inaudible) understanding each Councilman will hear the facts and if (inaudible) needs
more it will continue to the following meeting. (Inaudible) in the public forum and not
outside the public forum, is that correct?
Morrow: I don't think that is necessarily the case, I think that we can have discussions and
so on and so forth and then the attorney still calls and asks where it is we want to be with
our particular set of findings and the issues might be. Tonight's first findings is a perfect
example of that. It was a case where going into the deal the theory was there was a 2 -2
split with a tie breaker and the tie breaker was going to be in favor of denial of the
variance. It comes out in draft form that way and the instructions from the Council were
totally to the opposite. Yet there was discussion at the last meeting concerning the issue
and then there was still conversation with the attorney in the interim. So I see it as a
process that has all parts to it, all phases to it, it depends on the topic.
Corrie: I personally think that your decisions should be made in public.
Rountree: I believe in all cases the decision is made in public.
Corrie: I do to, well no it isn't. I am sorry to say that is isn't that way all of the time and I
think this Council is doing it now but it has not been in the past.
Morrow: I would beg to differ Mr. Corrie the issue in the past is that we have always made
the decision to approve or deny or modify or adopt or whatever the findings and
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 28
conclusions that has always been in the public forum by motion.
Cowie: That is true but people in the audience have gone away wondering what has been
done and (inaudible) by each councilman before the findings of fact and conclusions
(inaudible). Personally I think that is wrong, I thought it was wrong when I was a
councilman and I think that you are doing it the proper way now, you have discussions,
when a public hearing, before we close the public hearing (inaudible) in public and that
is good they understand where you are coming from (inaudible). If you are ready to make
a decision then I close the public hearing otherwise if I close the public hearing you can't
take any more testimony. That is exactly (inaudible) in the public. That is all I am saying
is (inaudible) then we have to decide upon what this court says (inaudible) whenever I am
asking for your discussion you are doing that now in public and that is right, you should
be doing that. The (inaudible)
Morrow: But I am suggesting to you from my perspective we have always held those
discussions in the meeting and talked about what we thought was relevant and what
wasn't relevant and the procedure by which the City Attorney drew the findings and
conclusions was simply to incorporate all of the data from the staff from the public
testimony from Council questions, Council positions 2nd then incorpgrate them within a
document as they were relevant to the law. He had the opportunity and did in each case
call for confirmation or for further final thoughts based on having the time to think the
presentation over. I don't see that we are doing it any differently now, I don't see that it
was substantially different from before. We are s#ill having the discussions, we are still
asking the questions and that is what we are supposed to do.
Corrie: I am just saying that when I was on the Council, we had the public testimony, it was
closed and then the next (inaudible) have the attorney draw up the findings of fact and
conclusions of law (inaudible) and I didn't like that and I think that (inaudible) I just feel that
you are doing it correctly (inaudible) that is one of the things that I said I was going to try
to do is to get these more open (Inaudible) I think we are going in the right direction and
I hope we continue to do that.
Johnson: Mayor Corrie could I ask just a question or two here, the thing that crosses my
mind is that the end result of a change here is going to result in more findings of fact and
conclusions of law being redone. That is going to in my opinion stretch the process out
longer than it has been. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is prepared to do
whatever you want us to do. But I do not want to take directions as Chairman of that
Commission from the Idaho Statesman or any other publication. I would like to request
from you or the City Council or the Counsel Mr. Crookston direction in writing as to what
you expect us to do. We are not as skilled as you people are in making these decisions
with our voluntary group. We have new members on that Commission, they are getting
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 29
their feet wet. We need some speck direction on what you want us to do. If you want us
to discuss each and every item after or prior to making a motion for findings of fact and
conclusions we will do that. I can see where some of those discussions are going to be,
have to be carried on is what I am saying at another meeting somewhere. When we go
to anon-public hearing meeting or we wait until the next one or whatever. I see this
stretching the process out. Just on my behalf I take orders well if you will put something
down concretely that we can follow we will follow that for you. That is all I am requesting.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, in answer to Mr. Johnson, I don't feel that your staff being as new as
you state they are have moved in the wrong direction. They have been very helpful to me,
the people that I have talked to in my conversations with you, as being the newest member
on this panel. I don't see a problem with your staff and my own contact with them. I think
they have done a fine job and I think a lot of the problems as I stated earlier is the fact that
the public doesn't totally understand the system. I em learning the system, I am going to
make some errors, I have made some errors but that is part of the learning process. I think
part of the problem with the public they think that I have gone to the P & Z meeting and
they have passed it, it is a done deal. They don't feel they have to contribute testimony
to the City Council. I have had several of them approach me with that attitude and I have
told them that is totally wrong. If you have a voice in P & Z hearings that voice should be
rolled over and come bads and expressed again with City Council. I think that is part of the
problem. But again we can cant' this conversation on all night and it is only 9:15, it would
be nice to get through this and get through the rest df the docket so we can clean
everything up.
Corrie: I agree with you Jim, I think that we need to set policy for you for the Council. I feel
that (inaudible) take longer. I don't want the public to feel that (inaudible) doesn't do that.
I just want to make sure that they understand where everybody is coming from and it
(inaudible) and what they are hearing and how we feel and nothing is done in a back room
and it is not. With that does anybody else have any other comments?
Morrow: My last comment would be is there has never been anything done in the back
room.
Corrie: And I am not saying that there is but I am saying that any time the public thinks
there is it is a possibility. I think that the public deserves (inaudible) and that is my feeling.
ITEM #19: DEPARTMENT REPORTS.
Corrie: Gary Smith, City Engineer.
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, do you have a copy of the bid that we
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 30
received today, thank you. Drilling of Well No. 17, municipal well No. 17 which is located
in Los Alamitos Subdivision we received two bids, Stevens and Sons well drilling at
$91,788.80 and Riverside Inc. at $55,011 both bids were in order, no arithmetic errors.
Riverside is the low bidder, they have a public works license and a drillers license, they
are both current. I would recommend the Council award the drilling contract to Riverside
Inc. they are out of Parma, Idaho and they have done work for us in the past. We have
been very satisfied with their work and their response time. Their quality of work has been
excellent. Drillers that they have on staff are experienced drillers and our hydrogeologist
Ed Squires is pleased that they have the contract also.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the bid of $55,011 from Riverside Inc. for
Well No. 17 and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract and the City Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree any further discussion?
Rountree: I would like to ask Gary just a point of clarification, what was your estimate of
this or did you prepare one?
Smith: I didn't have one Councilman.
Rountree: Just because of the discrepancy in the bids, are you comfortable that they were
bidding the right thing?
Smith: Yes, I talked to Ed Squires and he felt like we had gotten an excellent price. I think
that the reason that we got a good price is we had three bidders, or three plan holders for
the project. Two of those planholders are reverse rotary drillers and one of the plan
holders is a cable tilled driller, Stevens and Sons is the cable tilled driller and the other two
plan holders were Riverside of course and Pete Cope. I think the prospect of Pete Cope
bidding against Riverside or vice versa propelled Riverside to give it their best shot.
Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Mr. Mayor can I just make one more quick comment kind of off this subject.
Councilman Morrow made a comment tonight concerning staff being able to handle things
at staff level #o reduce the load on the Council. I agree 100% with that comment and I think
that the staff tries to do that wherever we can. The thing that I get concerned about is if we
are making decisions that are of the contrary to what the ordinance might say and I don't
i •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 31
want to get the staff in a position where we incur some kind of legal liability by doing that
and then being called on it. I guess that would be my only comment. I want to be able to
tell everybody the same thing as I know Shari does and I think we want to act in
accordance with what the ordinance requires. If the applicant wants to do something
different then that specific requirement then I feel hesitant to make some kind of decision
that is out of my bounds of responsibility or authority I guess you might say. That is really
the Council's authority. I hope I said that right. Thank you
Rountree: Gary, I have a couple things before you go, one I wanted to give you a
compliment for the letter that went out to the development community indicating that if it
isn't right it is coming back. That is long overdue and good job. And what is the status of
the water rate/water meter?
Smith: We have submitted all of the information to the consultant in fact Brad did that I
think last week. So hopefully we will have some information back in time for the strategic
planning meeting that we were trying to shoot for.
Morrow: I think that was on the agenda for then that was a target for that and two or three
other being the sewer study from JUB was it?
Smith: The water sewer rate study, is that the one you were referring to or were you
referring to the facility plan?
Rountree: The water and sewer rates and the structure for level pay that sort of thing.
Smith: I am not sure about the level pay, I will have to check into that. That was another
item on that.
Cowie: I might add Gary that part of that impact fee CIP is going to also require a study on
the hook up to sewer and water fees as well once a year. So we might need to talk about
that as part of that study.
Smith: That is part of the study both the user fee and the hook up fee. We will do that on
a yearly basis with update in our capital improvement plan. Any other questions you might
have of me this evening? Thank you.
Cowie: Janice?
Gass: Just an overview of the IRS audit that the City has been going through with Nicoli
Ferrel. You all received, the Councilmen received a copy of the transmittal. What you are
looking at in front of you is just the bads page. You should have received a copy of this last
i •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 32
transmittal. She said it was filled out incorrectly and Bob, Mayor had contacted Bob
Erickson to help us with this issue. He is an attorney that specializes in employee taxes.
This last page this is just on the small amount which is the agreed issues which was our
park workers which we were not looking at them as employees we were giving them a
1099. But anyway Bob Erickson will be calling me tomorrow to go over this small issue.
The other issue is still pending contract workers which are our inspectors. But just to give
you an update on this part right here this is the smaller issue concerning the firemen which
we converted into W-2's instead of 1099's. I had a call into him today but he won't be able
to get back to me until tomorrow. If this is close to this issue, when the Council on the
smaller issue she needs a reply on this smaller part, she said it was filled out incorrectly,
she needs it back to her office before 7 a.m. Friday morning this week. I am just asking
permission or approval of the Council and Mayor on Bob Erickson to go over this with us
tomorrow and to fill it out correctly. I guess the City Clerk had filled it out incorrectly.
Morrow: Bob Erickson is our attorney with Holly Troxel?
Gass: Correct
Morrow: And if I understand this Correctly then is that one of the issues was the volunteer
firemen you said they were 1099's and you thinking, this is to convert them to W-2's.
Gass: Yes this is on the back year 1994 because we have been in 1995 observing them
as employees but they are not subject to FICA taxes.
Morrow: I understand that from the information that you had given us before. The park
workers, this was a part time park worker that did some close up work as I recall?
Gass: Yes, when he was on duty he was representing himself as working for the City.
Morrow: So what you specifically need from us then is an approval for you to have this
discussion with Bob Erickson and then he will forward to the IRS the decision is that what
you are asking?
Gass: Yes, it needs to be filled, he will help up fill out the form correctly, she was a little
irritated because it wasn't filled out correctly a few weeks ago. So it is just a minor thing
on this one and then she will need a letter from the City, I think it is, the one that we gave
to Bob Erickson on the City observing him as power of at#orney. She is expecting that and
she will be in her office tomorrow if anybody has any phone calls, she was here all day
today. She will be in her office tomorrow if we have any questions on this after we talk to
him. She said she would be happy to help us with it.
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 33
Corrie: Mr. Erickson I think he was with the IRS at one time.
Gass: She has high regards for him, that he is very good.
Morrow: We only hire the best here you know.
Gass: Okay so it is more or less letting you know that he is on board.
Rountree: Does it need to be in the form of a motion for this approval?
Gass: You guys already gave it before, it was part of the approval I just wanted to give you
an update. I need to go to another department now, I am a jack of all trades.
Morrow; Okay, so you have your sense of direction here that it is okay, we authorize the
hiring of Mr. Erickson and (inaudible)
Gass: (Inaudible) another issue that I would like to bring up tonight is our delinquency
notices. Which has kind of been put on the back burner because we are always the last
one, the last department or I don't want to show up at 12:00 at night. All other cities just
give one notice, by the time that it is actually shut off because we do give two notices it is
90 days past due not 60. So, if we could, it would really speed things along, if we could
just have the one notice we would have to notify all of the city residents, right now there
are 7700 and it is growing every month and all of these people will have to be notified
through mail that we will be changing our policy. So it is going to take a lot of time to get
them noticed, it is going to take time to get new notices changed. Since we did the rate
change on the trash we are going to have to change our bills shortly we are going to be
running out. I think this is a good time before we start doing more bills that we can get that
change on the bill itself. It would help free us up because we have to take another week
in going through the delinquency list other than it might incur some extra work for a little
while to get these people programmed that we are only doing one notice. The first time the
notices go out there are 300.
Morrow: Correct me if I am wrong here under misimpression but I thought that we were
streamlining this process was to go from the 90 to the 60 days, I don't see any problem
with the one notice, we were also going to do the level pay in the entire scenario there.
And so certainly in my mind single notice is totally acceptable and I thought that we had
done that.
Rountree: That is what we had discussed.
Gass: There is nothing in the ordinance that needs to be changed we just have said no we
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 34
can't change anything yet.
Bentley: What you are asking is when you reprint the blank bills to have a statement put
on there that you will (inaudible) only one notice?
Gass: We will send a flyer out to everybody, but I didn't, I just keep asking when can we
change it to one notice because we will have to send notice to all of the customers.
Corrie: Counselor, doesn't that require an ordinance change?
Crookston: Our ordinance doesn't speak to it.
Rountree: On an interim can we do a motion to that affect and handle it in the ordinance
that we are crafting now.
Morrow: For the one notice?
Rountree: Yes
Crookston: We could, it is really just a resolution. There is no ordinance that governs this.
Morrow: So are you telling me that the two notice deal is really a matter of policy that is not
supported by either resolution or ordinance.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morrow: Well can we not make that switch tonight?
Crookston: You could
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we notify that henceforth there will be on
delinquency notice.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: You have heard the motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, any further
discussion or1 that? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Counselor, I would suggest that you double check that, you suppose, you didn't
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 35
know for sure.
Crookston: I have looked at the ordinance, there is no notice (inaudible).
Corrie: Anything else Janice?
Gass: That should be it.
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: I was going to bring something up but I will wait.
Morrow: Go ahead and bring it up.
Stiles: Well this is something that Jim has been working on as far as commercial vehicles,
I don't know if he has talked to any of you about it. Boise City has changed their policy on
commercial vehicles to allow normal vehicles like a passenger vehicle anything that
doesn't have rails or something like that that obviously make it a commercial vehicle and
they distinguish it for 1 ton vehicles. He wants the policy to be changed so that people can
be allowed to have a commercial vehicle in front of their house.
Morrow: What are you defining as a commercial vehicle, what is the difference?
Stiles: Well a commercial vehicle that is only a passenger car, it is a normal vehicle except
it may have some insignia on the side.
Morrow: Like aCoca-Cola pick up that you see that the Coke salesman drive?
Stiles: No
Morrow: You are not calling that a commercial vehicle.
Stiles: A family vehicle, a normal passenger vehicle that you see on the road everyday.
Not a commercial vehicle, nothing with rails or ladders. I guess that could be done by
some sort of resolution. It wasn't' really on the top of my list as far as a priority but I told
him that I would bring i't up. The reason this came up is because of the Walsh's plumbing
business, we are getting calls on it. Jim is getting calls on a daily basis from a resident in
the subdivision that is upset because they are parking their plumbing vehicle in addition
to their plumbing vehicle with all of the pipes on it and everything they are also parking a
bronco or something that has All Valley Plumbing on the side of it.
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 36
Corrie: Wayne did you not talk to the gentleman, I think we discussed it a little bit.
Crookston: I have discussed it with Jim and he has given me a copy of the Boise ordinance
I believed that he had discussed it with you and I think the idea was to bring it up a the
Council meeting to see whether or not the Council wanted to adopt a similar ordinance as
Boise's. Is that not correct Shari?
Stiles: Boise has simply come up with the policy that was written by the Planning director.
They didn't change their ordinance or anything else, it just defined their policy of what they
would consider a commercial vehicle. Our ordinance does define a commercial vehicle.
Rountree: In the case that indicated the bronco would be defined as a commercial vehicle?
Stiles: Yes, that is the perception that is causing the problem.
Bentley: Then we had better watch out for the pink Mary Kay cars.
Morrow: So let me ask in all seriousness is that defined as a commercial vehicle, it has
the detail on it.
Stiles: Since we don't have a definition in some people's eyes it would be viewed as a
commercial vehicle.
Morrow: It is like the example of the Coca-Cola pick up that I was talking about, usually
those pick ups are like Ford Couriers or Chevy, they are little tiny pick ups and they say
Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola and they are for route sales people who do the pre-selling and
the orders and on occasion probably take a few cases of soda wherever if somebody is
short. But it fits that same scenario that you are drawing with the Bronco or the Mary Kay.
Stiles: I thought you were talking about a delivery truck.
Morrow: No, one of the outfits that stands in mind is Ron Ashley with Ashley Glass has
some really beautiful step side Chevy pick ups that say Ashley Glass on them and they are
for his sales people that call on us in the field. I guess I have never really thought of those
as being commercial vehicles. But by definition they are.
Stiles: Well Boise has adopted the policy that they would allow one of those in front of a
house.
Morrow: Well that is consistent because those type of salesmen take those pick ups home.
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 37
Stiles: I don't see that we need to adopt any resolution, I believe that we could make it a
policy if we want just as Boise City did.
Corrie: Do you want to think about it Council and (inaudible)
Rountree: So what are you going to do if there are two of them?
Stiles: Have to have one in the garage.
Corrie: We will let you chew on that for a while and (inaudible). Anything else Shari?
Stiles: I believe that is it.
Corrie: Chief?
Gordon: Nothing Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Jim?
Johnson: Nothing
Corrie: (Inaudible) anybody else over there, Gary I guess we had you already. Wayne?
Crookston: Walt Morrow asked me to prepare two ordinances on the parks and recreation
commission. Mayor Corrie asked me to do one that is similar. I would just hand these out,
the first one is Mr. Mayor's. These are the ones that Councilman Morrow asked me to
prepare, these last two. There is a Parks and Recreation Commission that establishes the
Commission the first, the other ordinances assignments for department commissioners for
each department of the City. They are just proposals.
Corrie: I would direct the Council then to study those and we .can take those up if you like
the 4th if you so desire. Whatever time you need to look at them or whatever you want to
do changes to them.
Crookston: I had handed out these before the one submitted or requested by Mayor Corrie
was just a revise of what I had done as was what Councilman Morrow desired me to do.
That is all I have.
Corrie: Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Several issues, first is the strategic planning meeting for the 29th. I would like to
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 38
extend an invitation to Bob McQuade and a representative from the Sheriff's department
or Sheriff Kileen if he has time to have a discussion between the Council and those two
entities concerning the license bureau, license staff. Housing of them, short and long term
plan in terms of dealing with that function. I think that it is a time that we address that issue
with them given the fact that it appears to me fairly obvious that where we are at right now
we are in desperate need of more space within this City. My immediate priority in terms
of this coming budget year is to our staff and our staff space. Essentially it is my
observation that we have got some pretty tremendous people within our staff. They have
been operating under crisis management now for two to two and a half years given the
growth factor that we have had. It is also my observation that we are perilously close to
burn out in those individuals. I think that the last few City Council meetings have
demonstrated that we need to set our priorities more along the lines of dealing with staff
and staffing requirements, ordinances, we don't even have the capabilities of revisiting
things that we have done or reconsiderations. We need to work on those things. I think
that as that is appropriate here is that we need to get our staff some help. They are
tremendously snowed under, a large part of the solution to that is space and so I think it
is an appropriate time that we have Bob McQuade and Sheriff Kileen and his
representative Pam Babbitt come and meet with the Council at our strategic planning
meeting and discuss the future of the license department as it relates to the space within
our building. And put up on the table how we want as a Council to handle that and how
we can work that out with those two entities. So I would suggest that we invite them for our
meeting on the 29th. Also on the 29th we will have sewer and water fee study hopefully
being completed by then and a presentation of that. We will briefly discuss the job
description things we should be getting close to bringing to conclusion the 90 to 60 days
level pay. The issues that we talked about with respect to the water ordinance. My notes
indicate that we also extended or are going to extend an invitation to Richard Hahn of
Idaho Power concerning the franchise fee, explanation and presentation. So I, are there
any other agenda items that we see for that meeting Glenn or Charlie or Bob or Gary?
Rountree: I think one #hing would be resolution of or trying to come to some resolution of
the findings of fact and conclusions process.
Morrow: That is an adequate time for us to discuss that or maybe to review this judge's
decision.
Rountree: At least we can have some more discussion on it, I would like to bring that to
an end.
Corrie: If you would like I can get a hold of Bob McQuade and also probably Wade from
the Sheriffs department. I was supposed to call Richard Hahn, we have been in contact
and had trouble getting in touch with him for the last four days but I think I will talk to him
i
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 39
tomorrow and we can extend an invitation to him the 29th.
Morrow: Now it was my understanding he was on our docket for them, we were putting him
on the docket for them at our last meeting.
Corrie: I don't know about that, it could be. I have met with Richard once, you were there
at that same time.
Crookston: I thought he indicated that he was not going to be available until the very end
of May or at least the first part of June.
Corrie: I think the first part of June (inaudible)
Morrow: I don't have a problem if that is the case if he can't be at that strategic planning
meeting then he can be at our June 4th City Council meeting and make that presentation.
Either or would be fine. The next thing is, so we are agreed on the agenda, Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, I think I had discussed with representatives of
United Water to come and talk to us about those water saver kits that (inaudible). Did you
want to include that still as an agenda item, would we have time?
Corrie: I think so, I don't think Richard Hahn will be here.
Smith: I will contact Kathy Shiplett and verify that they can attend, I think there are two
people involved there. Thank you.
Morrow: And you are right because I do remember that being in the notes now. The next
thing is I have not yet seen the letter to Idaho Truss that we have been talking about for
our signature.
Corrie: I was hoping we would have that but our City Clerk and I have not been able to get
together since he has been out of town for the last two weeks but I guarantee you will
have it by Friday.
Morrow: The resolution on the Meridian Greens issue with the well lot?
Corrie: I have talked to Bob, Bob hasn't gotten back with me yet. I have talked to a couple
of other people out there and also to Fuller's. So hopefully as soon as Bob gets back with
me I don't know what their decision was. He has not stated anything about it as far as the
homeowners are concerned. He said he would get back when he had information.
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 40
Morrow: Let me ask you this was there, does anybody remember if there was any general
findings or was there any sort of stipulation, do we have anything on record that indicates
what positions were what or is everybody going from memory on this issue.
Corrie: I have asked Will when he gets back if he can go back through that and see if he
can find out some where along there, I am getting about four different stories from four
different people about what was said and what wasn't said. Fuller's said we never did
have it, Bob said Fuller's had it and they gave it to the association, and then the
association said they didn't want to be bothered with it anymore. So Willis going tp go
back and see if he can find out where that is.
Morrow: So at this point we are really not sure.
Corrie: Not at all, Bob thinks one thing, Bob Geisler and he thinks he remembers back so
far and then that the Fuller's had it and Fuller's said that they never had it. So we are
looking at it and see if we can find it. I was kind of hoping Bob could give us a little bit
more information since that was during his time. I am not getting the full story.
(End of Tape)
Morrow: I kind of wanted and we briefly talked about it but a brief discussion on our
ordinances and reconsideration and staff and so on and so forth. We will talk a little bit
about that. I guess my purpose in asking the question tonight was if the other councilman
had any outstanding thoughts that came quickly to mind as to those issues maybe what
we need to do is prepare a menu of things that we need to fix in terms of ordinances and
I think that tonight is a perfect example, Gary is talking about being uncomfortable making
certain decisions and certainly that is part of what we can address. Jim Johnson has talked
about having some guidelines that the P & Z can follow in terms of procedure. I think that
is a fair request. It looks to me like we could generate a menu of these things that we
need to discuss and get them on. Certainly with respect to zoning and development
ordinances and the conditional use things that have been talked about in the recent past
I know that Bob and I did our work on that some two years ago. Is that right Bob?
Corrie: Yes it has been two years.
Morrow: And to the best of my knowledge that work has never gone anyplace in terms
of adoption or of setting the ordinances straight. And so I think that we need and those
processes fully involve the P & Z Commission as 50/50 partners in joint meetings. And so
I think what I would like to see over the course of the next couple of weeks we as
Councilman and the P & Z as commissioners and the staff begin to generate lists of areas
where we see the deficiencies so we can begin to address those. I see our problems here
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 41
as a city twofold one is that the staffing requirement desperately needs to be looked after
and taken care of in this budget year. I think that we need to focus on the staff
requirements and need to focus on the issues in terms of making their jobs better with
respect to ordinances and resolutions or whatever it might be and attack those things from
both sides and not allow ourselves to be dissuaded by other issues and kind of
concentrate on those so that we can get to where we need to be and function more clearly
because I have to tell you that 3:00 Council meetings for me are a thing of the past. I ain't
staying past 1:00 and I think that we can do a lot about solving those problems.
Corrie: I think we have some good ideas coming from Gary that I got across my desk.
Morrow: So at any rate I think that I would like to see that and in the course of the next
couple of weeks that each of us on our own and kind of start going through our stuff and
jotting down the notes and then we get together as a group and go forward and get both
things done in the near term here. My concern is if we don't get it done we will as a City
be overwhelmed by what is going on and more importantly we will start losing really great
people simply due to bum out and other problems caused by burnout and rightfully so. My
last issue is I want to address and we talked very briefly about this at the end, at 3:00 the
other night which was not the time to do it. Parks Committee with respect to a recreation
center that has never been brought before the Council as, even for any type of discussion.
I think now is an appropriate time to have a discussion concerning that committee, it is
something that has appeared in the press on March 28th, the soonest we had any
notification as a Council was April 24th by virtue of a memo in our boxes. There has been
no discussion either formally or informally concerning this either prior to or since. I think
now is the appropriate time to discuss that and see where it comes out. There are certain
statutes within and I have a copy here for each. Statute 50-210, Boards, Commissions, it
says, "The Mayor and Council shall have authority to appoint such boards, commission
and committees as may be deemed necessary or expedient to assist the Mayor and
Council in better carrying out the responsibilities of their office. The responsibility, duties
and authority granted permanent boards or commissions shall be enumerated by
ordinance. All appointments to permanent boards, commissions or committees shall be
made by the Mayor with the advice and approval of the Council. Members of permanent
boards, commissions or committees may in like manner be removed. Members of all such
boards, commissions or committees shall serve without compensation but actually and
necessary expenses may be allowed by ordinance in the case of permanent boards,
commissions or committees or with the approval of the Mayor and- City Council for all other
boards, commissions or committees. Unless otherwise specifically provided any such
board, commission, or committee shall provide its own manner of organizing and shall
maintain such records and make such report as the Mayor and City Council may require
and request." Having read that I have asked Wayne for his opinion concerning that as it
appears in the State statute, certainly the rec center or what we have been indicated
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 42
through the press and the document coming to us on April 24th recreation center citizens
committee there has been no such action by the Council or discussion by the Council on
any of that issue. I would read the note attached as a list of citizens who have agreed to
help the Mayor and City Council look into the possibility of having a recreation center in
our community. All have agreed to give their time freely end perhaps give special input into
the feelings of the community and how we might use community help to develop our parks
coming on line. I also have asked Councilman Glenn Bentley to attend the meetings of this
group and to report to me, the Council their ideas and any information they might have for
us. If you wish to attend the meetings I would encourage you to do so. They will have their
first meeting on Thursday, May 2 at Godfather Pizza at 7:30 P.M. I guess one of the issues
there with that also with respect to that is that Council did adopt by unanimous vote when
we adopted the impact fee ordinance a capital facilities plan which put any kind of a
recreation center for first consideration in the year 1999 as I recall. The Council also some
two years ago did approve a development plan for Tully Park so it seems to me having
said those or made those comments I would like to ask City Attorney Crookstons
interpretation of the State statute and how it relates to this issue.
Crookston: As best I can, there are, this does not pertain to the statute. I represent the
City, I don't represent one councilman or two or the Mayor, I represent the City. I have told
Walt basically that, we have discussed the statute and now I will discuss the statute. The
first line says the Mayor and Council shall have authority to appoint such boards,
commissions and committees as may be deemed necessary or expedient to assist the
Mayor and Council in better carrying out the responsibilities of their offices. That in itself
would indicate that the Mayor and the Councilmen must appoint the boards, commissions
and committees. Down in the next, the third sentence is where it says all appointments
to permanent boards, commissions or committees shall be made by the Mayor with the
advice and approval of the Council and members of permanent boards, commissions or
committees may in like manner be removed. In the legal jargon if you will where it gets
specific it indicates the powers that the Council generally we (inaudible) restriction on what
the Mayor and Council have. In essence what I am saying is that the first line would lead
one to believe that the Council and Mayor appoint every member to a board or a
commission. But then you read that last sentence and it somewhat restricts the Mayor and
Council in appointing members to permanent boards (inaudible). That in itself raises a
question in my mind as to how to interpret this. You go on through the section and the
question I have is what is a permanent board or commission, that is not answered in this.
The other question that comes about is when it talks about expenses it says expenses of
a permanent board may be allowed by ordinance or by prior approval of the Mayor and
Council. That indicates that if there are expenses they have to be approved by the Mayor
and the Council. Then it says that the boards or commissions shall maintain records and
reports as the Mayor and Council require or request. That would go back to having the
Mayor appoint and the Council affirm on the boards. I believe that the Mayor or any
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 43
councilman could appoint a committee if it is not a permanent committee by stating kind
of a quote Mayor and Councilmen have authority to appoint committees as may be
deemed necessary to assist the Mayor and Council in carrying out the responsibilities of
their officers and then stating appointment to permanent boards, commissions, committees
shall be made by the Mayor with advice and approval of the Council indicates possibly that
non-permanent boards need not be confirmed by the Council. In essence what I am
saying is I don't know what it says, the statute. I don't think that it is clear whatsoever, I
think that the best thing to do would be to request an Attorney General's opinion as to how
it is to be interpreted. You can read it both ways. I have discussed it with Walt and he
says he reads it (inaudible) all boards, committees and commissions. I can't say with
some of the other statements that I made the expenses and things like that. I don't see that
is out of the realm but with my statement that I stated earlier that section goes on to
permanent boards that kind of says well you have to do this for a permanent board but
then you (inaudible) non-permanent board. The next idea is I don't know what a
permanent board is, it doesn't say.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, if I may, since I am the one that has been sitting on this panel it is not
to my knowledge a permanent board, they do not incur expenses upon the City. It is merely
an advisory board of concerned citizens that volunteered their time to take and try to come
up with some solutions to how we can ascertain getting a rec center built. We are looking
at the possibility of getting it built without the use of tax dollars through volunteer work,
donations, whatever. Whether it came across as, and I sort of agree with what Wayne is
saying here this is the plainest document that I have ever read. The intent of this
committee is not or my intent was not to circumvent the Council. If that is the case, maybe
the communication wasn't there. This committee is above board, they are very interested
in getting work. Some of the people are talking about volunteering work to help get Tully
up and off the ground. I don't really see the whole problem outside of maybe a little
miscommunication.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor I would like to hear your comments and what you think this citizens
committee is doing and why you think it may be going around you or the Council. You are
the one bringing it up so I would like to hear that.
Morrow: I think that clearly historically within this community at least in terms of my
involvement within this community there has never ever been that I can recall an issue
where these types of things are not totally discussed with the Council and have the
concurrence with the Council prior to the implementation of any committee for anything.
Rather it would be something as simple as asking for some citizen help to determine what
type of product might be best to buy in a given situation or identifying and solving
particular problems. IN this particular case there is a committee of some 20 people
appointed some of which in the case of a member of the press historically in this country
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 44
there has been a separation of press and government for purposes of objectivity. I don't
think that a member of a press on a committee, governmental committee is an appropriate
issue. I think in the case of the ethics in government issues with respect to your son being
on the committee, historically under the old ethics in government the nepotism things were
dealt with. We have never within this community in terms of my association with it even
done anything remotely close to having the appearance of impropriety. In this particular
case none of that was brought before the council. None of this issue was ever discussed
before the Council. By virtue of those folks serving on the committee it is apparent in
reading the minutes from the first committee meeting that in my mind they think that they
have the backing or the approval of the Council in terms of that committee and their job.
The truth of the matter is it has never been discussed within the Council. It is interesting
that we take poundings in the press for dealing with findings of fact and conclusions yet
we have standing committees within the City that have never been brought before the
Council, never had the public discussion within Council chambers whether we needed the
committee, wanted the committee or what the objective of committee may be. I see that as
not very desirable, I think that good government, open government discusses all types of
issues, all types of committees, and all types of objectives. Clearly as a Council if we had
voted not to address the issue of a rec center if ever until 1999 why are we looking at it
today. If we have a program in line for Tully Park in terms of development and have
approved that as a Council why is there discussion within the committee about layouts and
changing layouts and so on and so forth. The Council never ever gave any indication to
anybody that was something that we were interested in doing. There was not a discussion
within these Chambers formally in a City Council meeting or informally in a strategic
planning meeting, or at least in my case even casual conversation addressing those
things. So it seems to me that in fairness to us on the Council and those that may be
serving on the committee they have the right to expect that their labors within a committee
have the approval and support of the Council so that their labors are not in vain. We as
a Council certainly have a right to know what is going on. I see that as the issues here.
Bentley: If I may, I need to correct one thing. There never was a discussion of changing
the layout of Tully Park. I went and talked to Ron Tolsma and I asked him if those plans
had been approved and he said yes they have. I told the committee that is the layout of
the park. All their interest was to possibly help get some of the dirt moved and do some
of the ground work and get some funds raised to outfit the park with the equipment that it
needs.
Rountree: If I might jump in for a little bit just to put the two pieces that I see going on here.
I hear Glenn explaining the Committee that it is a committee of volunteers that are going
to explore the idea of the rec center and their hope is to develop the rec center with private
funds, no government involvement. For that they should be commended. But if they are
not aware that the City Council at this point in time has neither discussed it or authorized
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 45
u
it and that is not made clear within the group then I think it is a disservice to the group and
it is a disservice to the Council because there is no point in that group generating great
amounts of enthusiasm and private monies that may hinge on a decision that the City
Council may have to make at some point in time to carry the either positive or negative
burden of a rec center past its construction. But if that group is aware of that I have no
problem with citizens out there working together to do something for the City. On the other
hand the Council has been represented as seeking this information along with the Mayor,
at least in the letter that we got notifying that the Commission even existed. When in fact
that is not true. I wouldn't want to work on that committee for any period of time knowing
that the City was not 100% behind it and the citizens of the City were not behind it. There
are a lot of things that need to be done. If the two groups don't have buy in with one
another it is just like a lot of good efforts that go (inaudible) or in the private sector it
doesn't happen because you end up in a conflicting situation. I really don't care what the
State code says, it seems to me that it is just good sound practice that if the citizens and
the City government can't communicate, are not communicating amongst themselves,
something is broke and we need to fix it and then go forth. That is all I have to say.
Johnson: I am a member of this committee, I was asked by Mayor Corrie if I would serve
and I have this problem with saying no, I don't know how to do that. I did not attend the
second meeting, I went to the first meeting and the impression I got from that meeting that
it was an exploratory type meeting, it was not a single issue that we were going to address
such as a rec center. We were going to look at several different issues that would improve
the committee in terms of parks and recreation facilities. We talked about our needs, we
talked about the possibility of grants being available but we never got into any specific
detail on that. I went there fully thinking as a member of the committee that this was surely
a subject that had been discussed by the Council or that the Commissioners were at least
aware of. I was surprised when I talked to Walt Morrow later after the initial meeting that
he did not know the meeting was taking place. That is all I have to say about that. I see
this committee as capable of producing needed improvement for the community. I think
it needs the total backing of the community and particularly the community's leaders. I
think that the intentions are certainly commendable and worthwhile. There are a lot of
dedicated people on that committee that have already contributed hours and hours of
community service and are willing to contribute more and I think we need to take
advantage of that. That is all I have to say.
Corrie: Thank you Jim, let me give you a little background on this. Before I took office I
talked to a lot people in the City and they were talking to me about parks and possibility
of a rec center. I thought well this would lend an opportunity for those people who wanted
to (inaudible) look into the possibility of doing something similar (inaudible) for the citizens
of the City to perhaps get together and work to a conclusion that we might be able to
(inaudible). When Mr. Morrow brought that up last week I did talk to some different people
C~
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 46
about this and (inaudible) I just thought that some of the citizens that got together with me
and they had talked to me and I asked them if they would like to do this and then perhaps
get some results and bring it to the Council's attention because (inaudible) that was the
purpose of the hearing. I will certainly go back to that Council or that group and make
absolutely sure if the Council so desires it is not with their approval (inaudible) Council
wants (inaudible) I wasn't under the impression that I had to get Mr. Morrow's approval or
anybody else's approval to have the citizens look into something like this. Quite honestly
I am a little embarrassed that Mr. Morrow even had the fprtitude to think that was
something that I might do behind the Council's back. I would respectfully ask Mr. Morrow
to look up the word nepotism and I think he will find that is not any way close to what my
son is doing. I take offense to that Mr. Morrow and I think that (Inaudible) he put one
together in Colorado. (Inaudible) your comment on nepotism is completely out of line. As
far as (inaudible) separation of government, Loren Roberts is the one that we are talking
about he was going (inaudible) committee be dissolved, I will certainly go to them and tell
them that you don't (inaudible). So I guess I will leave it to the Council and let you decide
if you want this committee to (inaudible) so that is where I am coming from. I guess I will
let the Council decide which way they want to go with this and then we will go to the
committee.
Rountree: Bob, you appreciate the position that you have put me in personally and the
Council in in what you just said. I don't say this to be derogatory but it is an issue that I
think shouldn't happen and we shouldn't be at odds with one another on this thing. But
now you have set the Council up to be the fall guys. I am not saying you intended to do
that but no matter what the Council does at this point in time we are the bad guys. I don't
disagree with what this group's energies are going to do. But upfront this group should
have known that the Council was supportive of their efforts. The Council and City provides
them with guidelines and a basic structure as to what the City felt they wanted so they can
work together. Now the Council is put in the position that you are either going to take it
or leave it. Well, I don't want to do that. I would like to take it with conditions. I would like
to see that group go forth, I would like to see it authorized by the City Council but I would
like to group to understand that the City Council needs to get their thoughts together as
to what they want that group to accomplish and the directions that group needs to go. I
don't perceive myself as taking sides here but I think that right or wrong, intentions or no
intentions or thought or no thoughts this kind of situation shouldn't happen.
Corrie: I agree and it was never an intention to do that.
Rountree: I am not saying that Bob but I appreciate we all get in these Rubik situations
and we have to get the puzzle put together. But ultimately to make this thing win and win
for everybody the Council has got to be behind it. The Council can't be put to this group
of energetic folks and I know they are as wanting to put the thumb on them, wanting to
r~
L
Meridian Ci#y Council
May 21, 1996
Page 47
disband their efforts, wanting to kick them in the shins for being volunteers. I don't want
to do that, and I don't like being put in that situation. I think there is a resolve here but I
don't think it is immediate and I don't think we are going to get it done tonight. I guess
maybe I want to mediate this and say the Mayor and the Council come out of this thing as
leaders and if you will one of the points of light, if that means something to you, so we can
do something positive for the community. I am sure that most of the committee members
don't realize that we are as a city in recreational areas are going to have to work off our
capital development program to use impact fees to get things done. If our capital
development program says 1999 as a rec center if public funds are going to be used on
that, that is about when we can start thinking about it. If private funds are going to be used
and the City can help in any way we need to be involved. But we can't be pitted against
one another and one another can't be put in these ridiculous situations of either take it or
leave it or whatever. I would like to see this resolved mutually come together and say this
is how it goes, I don't know about the rest of you.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I am in terms of, I am ~n complete agreement with Mr. Rountree. My
purpose in bringing this before this body was to get it up on board, debate the issue, put
it back into the perspective of Mayor and Council conducting the City's business. If the
decision is made by the Council to go with the committee and assign it certain tasks that
is what needs to be done. But any committee whether it is a 2 or 3 man committee or a 20
person committee in my opinion needs to be discussed at the Council level, needs to be
debated so that we can get the best of what we can from that level of effort from those folk
and from ourselves. I totally agree with the concepts that Charlie has talked about. I find
no fault with the concept of a committee, but I think the committee, any committee for any
purpose needs the sense of direction of the City's elected leaders and to that end that is
fair for those elected to take responsibility for that, it is fair for those that serve on
commiftees so that they have a sense of direction and where they want to gb or where the
city wants them to go. I am in agreement with Charlie to the extent that Mr. Tolsma is not
here, I think that what we determine what we want to do with this should be determined
by all four councilmen and the Mayor in open discussion in my mind should occur at the
next City Council meeting. Then if the discussion is that we want to go with the committee
then we have the discussion about the make up of the committee and the number of
members and so on and so forth and goals and objectives that committee may have and
what the realities are in terms of what we as a Council can do and what they can
accomplish. Then tailor it to that. Councilman Rountree has been working with St. Luke's,
I noticed some duplicity in the minutes of this meeting there was a suggestion by a
member about St. Luke's property. apparently Mr. Rountree's involvement with that had
not been discussed with that committee or whatever, but the point is that we are talking
about a large segment of work that we need to do within this City and it needs to be a
totally involved coordinated effort with everybody having the same information. So I think
that I would like to see this discussed on our June 4th agenda and based on that
! ~
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 48
discussion whatever direction the Council wishes to take is what we take. I think that is
appropriate.
Bentley: If I may, in regards to Charlie's involvement with St. Luke's there was an article
in the paper stating that Charlie had been working with St. Luke's and I reiterated that
there at that time that it showed up in the minutes they asked about St. Luke's and I said
Charlie Rountree was working with St. Luke's on that issue. There was
Rountree: That is not an issue with me, the issue with me is that I just think that we are in
a nasty spot.
Morrow: And I use that as a point, the point is that the concept here is to get the very best
we can for those citizens whom we work for. You do that in my mind by having a
concentrated effort with everybody all up and down the line involved and on board with
what it is we are trying to do. We haven't done that.
Rountree: I guess I would support the concept of maybe the council meeting, the next
council meeting that this be on the agenda that the committee come forth with, they have
a chairman a governing body of the organization or committee or whatever.
Johnson: I believe at the last meeting they did and Mr. Bentley would be aware of that; I
think Keith Bird is chairman. But what you need to know as councilmen is that the next
meeting is scheduled for tomorrow evening.
Rountree: I would like that group to come and present what it is they have done or present
what it is they feel what their charter is. They may already have the guidance that is there
and it may be that we need to wish them well and concur in it. But if there is something
misguided I think we need to maybe help draft some additional dharter language for the
group and authorize it and then they know that the City has buy in. So at least when they
make recommendations they have not assurance at least some sense that the City is going
to listen to them and again you don't set the Council up in a fall guy situation. All of the
sudden you get something brought to them by a group that they didn't have any buy in and
because of that take a position that may be contrary to the recommendation.
Corrie: Alright
Rountree: Is that asking too much?
Corrie: I don't think you are asking too much, I just, I again apologize to the Council if you
feel that you got put in that position. I just never thought that a group of citizens that got
together and asked me if they could do that I never thought that there would be so much
complications in a group of people wanting to get together and sort of help the City along
i
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 49
with what the communities feelings were. If that be the case I apologize to the Council
because it is not my (inaudible) and I did not intend to put you in the hot seat and I
personally don't think you are in it yet. We will have the committee talk to you and see
where you are going. So we will put them on the agenda on the fourth if that be your
pleasure and then (inaudible) talk to you and see where they are coming from and what
they want to do and then you can make whatever decision you want to make. I don't think
(inaudible)
Rountree: I don't either I just don't want to be in a situation where somebody is anticipating
something from me (inaudible)
Corrie: (Inaudible) looking into different possibilities of different avenues to go and that
is what they were asked to do and they will get that information to you and we will go from
there. Anything else Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Nothing else
Corrie: Mr. Bentley?
Bentley: Yes, I have one question for Counsel, where are we at on the licensing
agreement?
Crookston: I have a copy back and I thought I had delivered it to the City but if I haven't
I will get it to you immediately. I am glad that you asked that because in what they have
submitted back to the City it basically says that the City will pay for anything says that they
will indemnify the district for any damages whether or not it is a third party just walking
down on the Fothergill greenway or whether or not it is a Nampa Meridian Irrigation
employee that is out there trimming something and for one reason or another he falls down
because A he is incapable of standing, and the City pays for it. There are just some things
in it that I think that the irrigation district is asking quite a bit for the City to do that is pretty
much what Nampa agreed to though. It is a question of whether or not the City of Meridian
wants to do that.
Corrie: I think also Wayne we don't know exactly where that pathway who it really belongs
to.
Crookston: The pathway is a little different than Fothergill, the other problem though is that
Nampa and Meridian's attorney has told me that they are not going to do anything with the
pathway until we get Fothergill worked out.
Bentley: But if they don't own the land they don't have anything to do anyway.
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 50
Crookston: I can't disagree with that, but they have filed what is called a declaration of
use. I don't really know what that means. (End of Tape) I will get that to you, I thought
that I had delivered that but if I haven't then I will get that to you tomorrow. But there are
those questions that I think the Council needs to talk about and see if you want to bite off
on this agreement.
Morrow: Well not at first glance based on what you are saying now if that is what is in the
agreement there are some things that are real objectionable.
Rountree: I would make the suggestion that it is going to have to be resolved fairly sgon
because come August and it is not resolved then the funds for that project could very well
be jeopardized.
Corrie: There are so many hoops that we have to go through with this thing too, Tim
Burgess we discussed this with the attorney and it is almost impossible to work with these
grants.
Morrow: I think the lesson that we are learning here Bob and the rest of the guys is let's
don't ever take a grant again.
Corrie: I think that (inaudible) we may have to do this without that program to do it, just
forget the bike path. Get Tully park on line and forget (inaudible) Tim is looking at that
possibility.
Crookston: This came up in our meeting before we met with John Caywood (inaudible) I
was requested to get a title report and I received it but what I got was that subdivision to
the north of the canal, (inaudible) there is another name to it, Sheri Lynn, that is what I
looked at. All it is (inaudible) I called Harold Houston the manager of Pioneer Title this
morning and said this is not what I need. I need to know who the owner of the land is
south of the canal. He said well I will get to it as quick as I can.
Corrie: Does that answer your question Mr. Bentley?
Bentley: Yes
Corrie: Anything else? Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Jeff Hull at St. Luke's is an awful busy guy and we have not connected since
last we met, so I don't have any updates there. Walt made an interesting point, most, well
maybe one, somewhat in jest and I think the reality of not meeting here after 1:00, my
question is I guess for Council is if we advertise a public hearing to be held on the 21st
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 51
and it doesn't happen until the 22nd because it happened to be at 3:00 in the morning are
we in trouble?
Crookston: No
Rountree: I would like to see us come to some resolution that we don't go past midnight
and anything, no new business past midnight and whatever is on the agenda at that point
is tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Corrie: I have a list of suggestions for the Council on that very thing and Mr. Smith has
given me a list of things that he has thought about and I have talked to (inaudible) and I
think we can resolve this without too much of a problem. I will put those together and
(inaudible).
Rountree: I can put up with it once in awhile but I know staff has to do it here and P&Z and
you are losing them for those days and that is not helping the City at all.
Morrow: And I think my remark was somewhat in jest, but the serious side of that is in a
crisis situation I don't have any problem staying as late as we have to stay. But in terms
of normal doing business I don't have a problem with setting a call time and at call time we
are done.
Corrie: Well that is one of the suggestions and there are some other things that we need
to eliminate rather quickly. I have about three things here, one is (inaudible) you all have
in your box and you might want to check with Will to go to that. You are all of course
welcome and paid for by the City. Second point while Will is gone sometimes there are
some documents that need to be attested to my signature and also some documents need
to be signed by the City Clerk. Gary Smith and I discussed this and the possibility of
deputizing Anna to sign some of those when he is gone. We won't need to do that very
often but there are situations that have come up and actually right now that need to have
the City Clerk's attesting and with the Council's approval we need to perhaps deputize her
and get your approval as a deputy.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor; I would move as a Council that we authorize Anna Doty to be
deputized as Deputy City Clerk for the purpose of attesting any documents that the Council
authorizes the Mayor to sign or the Mayor needs to sign.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Okay, moved and seconded, discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
• •
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 52
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Last thing, Mr. Morrow and I (inaudible) liaisons or somebody, and we are talking
about (inaudible) talked to each of you earlier (inaudible) I would like to have the Council
or have you (inaudible) Mr. Tolsma to be the liaison as far as the budget (inaudible) Parks
and Recreation, Mr. Rountree for the Police Department, Mr. Bentley for the Fire
Department, Mr. Morrow for the Public Works Department, I think I have talked to each one
of you on that (Inaudible) that we kind of get an idea of what is going on until we settle this
liaison for budgeting and that (inaudible).
Bentley: I want to be a Chancellor.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Corrie: But I do thing that we need to give them some help, I have talked to each one bf
the department heads and (inaudible)
Morrow: Let me ask you this Bob if we resolve this through June, we are dealing with a
Holiday weekend coming up now, the reality is that between now and on our meeting of
June we are probably not going to see a lot of activity, the fourth of June, we are not gong
to see a lot of activity with those folk. It doesn't matter to me whether we do that now or
not from a practical standpoint how much contact are we going to have in the next ten
days? Mr. Tolsma is out of town until Monday or Tuesday that he is back. I am out of town
until Tuesday night.
Corrie: I just thought if you wanted to be closer or look at it (inaudible) June 10th is when
the departments are going to submit their budgets anyway, they probably have pretty well
done it anyway.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council I am in the final (inaudible) I will have it done prior to
(inaudible)
Morrow: That is really good, so why don't you give us all a copy of it.
(Inaudible)
Morrow: Then we can be perusing it so we can have good questions ready as soon as
possible.
Bentley: I have one other question, we spoke once about getting the ordinance put on
disk.
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 53
Gorrie: We are looking at that, Shari we are looking at that possibility down the line but not
right now.
Morrow: I would think that before we do something like that Glenn we get III of our
ordinances overhauled. One of the things that Bob and I came away with at the convention
that I talked about earlier this evening when we did our committee thing was that we were
upside down and needed to do a lot of work on them.
Corrie: I think the ordinances are being put on disk, Anna is that correct, are we looking
into that
Stiles: Will was looking into that, the zoning and subdivision ordinances are already on
disk.
Corrie: They are being put on it anyway.
Morrow: There is one more thing that I forgot about, I wanted to thank Anna for the
cookies, it is a lot better than the candy.
Corrie: Entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved
Morrow: Second
Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
D. CORRIE, MAYOR
•
Meridian City Council
May 21, 1996
Page 54
ATTEST:
~ ~
WILLIAM G. BE~tG, JR., CI LE K
•
• MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL .
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 21,1 996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 7, 1996:._.
1. TABLED FROM MAY 7, 19 6: MICHAEL CASSEN~ PRESENTATION OF CITY
SEAL: .~cwl-~•~ -Y' ~ L 2`i'~'
2. TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SPORTSMAN
POINTE N0.5: ,(
3. TABLED FROM MAY 7, 1996: BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER:
REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY MODULAR TRAILER: ~ ~'~~}.~,~,r
~~~~~
4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANC REQUEST
FOR RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION BY RON YANKE:
5. ORDINANCE # 31 - OLSON-BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.2 ANNEXATION: ,~~~
6. FINAL PLAT: PAC RD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONST.: -2--P
~~,~ ~9 N ~ 19 9'C~
7. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY 7, 1996: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PORKY PARK NO. 1 SUBDIVISION BY
RON VAN AUKER: ~~,lQ (-~-,r,~ ~1, . __ ,, c.I / `~ ~ ~-F
~`^"`~
8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED FROM MAY 7, 1996: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLA TYNE TROUTNER BUSINESS
PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: .~~ ~,J7 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~`'
h~
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR BALLANTYNE TROUTNER BUSINESS PAR
BY JIM BALLANTYNE; TABLED MAY 7, 1996: ~~~ ~~~
U~ I ~~Co <
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT BY
SANITARY SERVICES INC.: ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~'~
11. REQUE T FOR HO K UP TO CITY WATER BY DAVID & BECCI CARMACK:
,..
12. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT TO WINGATE SUBDIVISION NO.2
BY DAN WOOD: ~~~ve~-~
13. REQUEST FOR TI E EXTENSION ON SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION N0.2:
~ r~~~
14. LATE OMERS AGREEMENT FOR GEMTONE CENTER NO. 2: ,~C i~ C
y,1g9~
15. REQU T FOR A LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSE FOR DWAYNE WINN:
16. REQU ST FOR A BEER AND WINE LICEN E F
S •R RED MEYERS.
17. REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF FENCE VARIANCE COMMITTEE DECISION
BY RICHARD & KAREN SHAW: ~ ~ }~j ~
18. DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURE ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW:
19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: /~,~,
1. BID RESULTS FOR WELL NO. 17: ~~~ ~ " ~"` "'
CTTY OF MERIDIA
PUB~C MEETING SIGN-U~SHEET
~~ S.
~~~ ~
~u~~s
~~~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 21.1996
APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 19
REQUEST: DEPARTMENT REPORTS
AGENCY COMM,~NTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
III Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridiah.
~J
~1
L~
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
to: Gary
cc:
from: Brad Watson ~'U
re: Well No. 17 Bid Opening
date: May 21, 1996
I reviewed both bids submitted today for the above project. by Stevens and Sons Well
Drilling ,Inc. ($91,788.80) and Riverside Inc ($55,011.00). Both bid forms are in
order and contain no arithmetic errors. Riverside Incorporated's Public Worlcs
License and' Driller's License are current and will both expire at the end of June.
from the desk of...
Brad Watson
Assistant City Engineer
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642-2600
(208) 887-ZZI I
fax: (208) 881-IZ9l
c:\bw\wZ\lowbid.mem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
S-2 ~ 9 (~
~ ~J~ ~ ~ ~°~ Fro ; a
AM. P.M. ~
APR_ Z 2 1996
.C _ ,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND .FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
JANET CASTANEDA, an individual,
MORGAN MASNER, an individual,
and the CITY OF EAGLE, an Idaho
municipal corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION, an Idaho
corporation, and the CITY OF
BOISE CITY, an Idaho municipal
corporation,
Case No. 97787
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Respondents.
The above-named matter is on appeal from three, land-use
decisions of the Boise City Council.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Brighton Corporation ("Respondent Brighton") owned and
planned to develop an approximately 188 acre parcel of land
located on the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Chinden
Boulevard. When Respondent Brighton purchased the land,
approximately 160 acres of the property was located in the
unincorporated portion of Ada County, within the Boise City area
of impact. The remaining approximately 28 acre parcel was
located in Boise City.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,; • ~ •
In furtherance of its plans, Respondent Brighton filed an
application with Boise City to annex and zone the 160 acre:
parcel on September 9, 1993. On September 20, 1993, Respondent
Brighton filed an application to rezone the approximately 28
acre parcel. Thereafter, on September 28, 1993, Respondent
Brighton submitted a subdivision application to Boise City.
That application, for "Hobble Creek" subdivision, applied to the
entire 188 acre parcel of land.
Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") reviewed
the annexation and zoning applications at an October 18, 1993
meeting. P&Z recommended approval of the applications to the
Boise City Council. P&Z reviewed the preliminary subdivision
plat application at its November 1, 1993 meeting, and
recommended approval to the Boise City Council.
The Boise City Council ("Council") scheduled consideration
of the preliminary plat for its November 16, 1993 meeting,, but
deferred actual consideration until the November. 23, 1993
meeting. At that time, the Council voted to approve the
application, subject to various conditions.
The Boise City Council scheduled a public hearing on the
annexation and, zoning on December 7,-1993. On that date, the
Mayor of Eagle entered a request that the hearing be continued
until he could participate. Pursuant to this request, the
hearing was continued until the January 11, 1994 meeting, at
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• r
which the Mayor of Eagle participated. Thereafter, the Council
voted to approve the annexation and zoning, and the rezoning.
Respondent Brighton submitted its final plat application
for the renamed "Dallan's Hobble Creek" subdivision to Boise
City on March 30, 1994. The Council considered and approved the
final plat at its April 19, 1994 meeting.
The Council enacted Ordinance No. 5536 to implement the
rezone on April 26, 1994, and Ordinance No. 5544 to implement
the annexation and zoning on May 17, 1994.
On May 24, 1994, Petitioners filed a Motion for Declaratory
Judgment with this Court. The Court, in response to the
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, chose to treat the Petitioners'
complaint as a petition for judicial review. Petitioners ask
this Court to find that Boise City's November 23, 1993 and April
19, 1994 subdivision approvals, and January 11, 1994 annexation
and rezone application approvals, were invalid.
This Court heard oral argument on February 26, 1996.
DISCUSSION
Petitioners' first argument is that Boise City's approval
of the subdivision is invalid because, at the time of
consideration and approval, the. land at issue was located
outside of the city's boundaries. Petitioners contend that such
an "illegal extraterritorial exercise of police power" is not
allowed under either the Local Planning Act or the Idaho
Constitution.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
r
The Court agrees with the Petitioners that, generally
speaking, a municipality may not take action outside its:
boundaries. It does not appear, however, that the City of Boise
exercised any illegal extraterritorial power in this case.
According to the preliminary approval, the subdivision was
approved subject to the condition that "[a]ll lands platted
within this subdivision shall be officially annexed into the
corporate limits of Boise City prior to signing of the final
plat by the Boise City Engineer." As Respondent Boise City
points out, approval conditioned upon later annexation could be
reasonably construed as approval subject to a condition
subsequent. It is this Court's view that the subdivision was
actually approved effective when subsequent events caused it to
be annexed into Boise City.
It appears there is nothing illegal about considering the
subdivision, annexation, and rezoning actions in the manner they
were considered by Boise City in this case. Respondent Boise
City contends that the applications moved through the system at
different rates because of the notice and hearing requirements
specific to the various actions. Petitioners state that they
are challenging both the preliminary plat application approval
on November 23, 1993, and the final subdivision plat approval on
April 19, 1994. It is uncontroverted that, at the time of the
final plat approval, both the annexation and zoning had been
approved.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 4
i `~~ -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
None of the authorities cited by the Petitioners lead the
Court to the conclusion that the actions taken by Boise City
were an illegal exercise of extraterritorial power. In fact,
the methods used appear to be contemplated by the Area of City
Impact Agreement entered into between Boise City and Ada County.
A related argument is the Petitioners' contention that it
was error for Boise City to approve the subdivision application
without first referring the matter to Ada County. Petitioners
cite Boise City Code Section 11-15-4C, the codified version of
the Area of City Impact Agreement between Boise City and Ada
County, which provides as follows:
Applications for planned developments, subdivisions
and rezones within the Boise Urban Service Planning
Area shall occur as a result of a request for
annexation to Boise City; however, Ada County may
consider such applications in those exceptions where
annexation is not approved by Boise City or where the
parcel on which such application is filed is not
contiguous to Boise. City and therefore cannot be
annexed.
Petitioners are apparently of the belief that the subdivision
application should have been considered first by Ada County.
There appears to be no support for this reading of Section
11-15-4C. The plain language of the provision does not require
Boise City to refer subdivision applications to Ada County
before acting on them. Respondent Brighton Corporation contends
that the only time Ada County would consider a subdivision
application is when annexation is not approved by Boise City or
when a parcel of land is not contiguous to Boise City and cannot
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
be annexed. This Court is in agreement with the Respondent
Brighton Corporation's reading of Section 11-15-4C. Neither of
the situations contemplated by the section in which Ada County
could consider an application are present here. Further, the
statute says that Ada County "may" consider the application,
which renders the Petitioners' reading incorrect for a second
reason. Thus, it was proper for Boise City to consider the
subdivision application without first referring it to Ada
County.
Petitioners' second set of arguments revolves around the
issue whether approval of a subdivision application is a quasi-
judicial action for which minimum due process requirements must
be satisfied. Petitioners state that when a zoning board
applies general rules or policies to specific individuals or
situations, its actions are quasi-judicial rather than
legislative.
Petitioners cite Cooper v. Board of Countv Commissioners of
Ada Countv, 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947 (1980), and Gav v. Board
of County Commissioners of Bonneville County, 103 Idaho 626, 651
P.2d 560 (Ct.App.1982), in support of their arguments. In
Cooper, the Idaho Supreme Court held that an application for
rezone of specific property is a quasi-judicial determination
because it applies a general rule to a particular piece of
property. Cooper at 409. In G_y, the court quoted Cooper and
held that the granting of a variance is, in essence, a change of
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
authorized land use for a particular parcel of land, making it
quasi-judicial, whether labelled as a "variance" or "re-zoning."
The G_~r court stated that Cooper
. draws a distinction between determination of
general zoning policies and the ,application of such
policies to specific situations. The former function
is deemed legislative, and-the latter quasi-judicial.
Cooper, 103 Idaho at 628;.
Petitioners also cite language from Curtis v. City of
Ketchum, 111 Idaho 27, 720 P.2d 210 (1986), in which the court
stated that the plaintiff therein's arguments were "nothing more
than a challenge of the' city council's quasi-judicial action
denying his subdivision action." Id. at 32-33. Petitioners
argue that "this language establishes that action on a
subdivision application is quasi-judicial in nature." Reply
Brief at 19.
It does not appear, however, that the Curtis court made any
determination regarding the nature of the action ana zne
applicability to it of due process concerns. The sentence
referred to by the Petitioners is merely dicta and should not be
given any precedential value.
Respondent City of Boise contends that the approval of a
subdivision plat by the Boise City Council is not quasi-judicial
because it is a ministerial function. Once a city passes a
subdivision ordinance pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6513, a
landowner is virtually assured that a plat will be approved if
it is in compliance with the subdivision, ordinance and zoning
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~ ~ -
requirements. Respondent cites Boise City Code Section 9-20-
05 (D) (5) (a) , which states that " [i] f the plat conforms to the
requirements of the statute and ordinances applicable .at the
time of approval of the Preliminary Plat and all conditions made
by the Council in approving the Preliminary Plat, the Council
shall approve said plat." Respondent also cites Boise City
Code Section 9-20-05 (C) (5) (b) , which states " [i] f no action is
taken by the Commission or the hearing officer at the end of
sixty (60) days, the plat shall be deemed to have been
recommended for approval _. .", as well as Boise City Code
Section 9-20-OS (C) (6} (e) , which states " [i] f no action is taken
by the City within the time limits, or as extended, the
Preliminary Plat, as filed, shall be deemed approved."
Respondent City of Boise contends that the provision for
automatic approval as well as the mandatory language used in the
above-cited sections indicate that the P&Z and the Council have
little discretion when approving subdivision plats and, thus,
that subdivision approval is not a quasi-judicial action for
which notice to affected parties is required. Respondent argues
that the time for the Petitioners to make the arguments they are
attempting to make before this Court was when the zoning
decisions were made. Respondent also notes that both the Mayor
of Eagle and Petitioner Masner were present when the rezone and
annexation and zoning were approved on January 11, 1994, and
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 8
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i- ;. !
that the final plat was not approved until after the annexation
and rezoning had been approved.
The cases cited by Petitioners in support of their argument
deal with rezones and conditional use permits. There does not
appear to be any authority for Petitioners' argument that
subdivision approval is a quasi-judicial action when it is done
according to the procedures employed by the City of Boise.
Because this Court does not agree with the Petitioners' argument
that the subdivision approval was a quasi-judicial action, it
need not reach the determination of what process or notice was
due.
Petitione"rs' next argument is that it was impossible for
the subdivision approval criteria to be satisfied when the
subdivision was not in compliance with. existing zoning.
Presumably, Petitioners are referring to the approval of the
preliminary plat application. As discussed above, the rezone
and zoning upon annexation had been approved when the final plat
was approved on April 19, 1994. This argument appears to be a
variation of the Petitioners' disagreement, as discussed above,
with the sequence in which the land use decisions at issue here
were considered by the City of Boise. Because this Court is of
the opinion that the subdivision approval did not actually take
effect until after the stated condition of annexation was met,
it will not address, further, Petitioners' arguments in this
regard.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 9
i
.. ;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~ `•
Petitioners also argue that Boise City did not meet the
notice requirements of Idaho Code § 67-6511 and, therefore, that
its action in approving the application for rezone is invalid.
Petitioners present a somewhat confusing discussion of the
notice requirements, and assert that Ada County was entitled to
notice under that provision.
A review of the record contradicts the Petitioners' claims.
It appears that Boise City published a notice of hearing in the
newspaper on October 3, 1993, and mailed notices of public
hearing to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the
affected property on October 8, 1993. Further, nothing in I.C.
§ 67-6511 requires that Ada County be given notice. Ada County
is not a party to these proceedings, and has not complained of
any lack of notice. For that reason, and because it appears
from a review of the record that proper notice was given, this
Court is unable to find merit in the lack of notice arguments of
the Petitioners.
Petitioners' next argument is that Respondent Brighton
Corporation's actions in contacting staff and appearing before
the Planning and Zoning Commission to ask for subdivision
approval constitute ex parte contact such that the subsequent
approvals of the rezoning and annexation are also invalid.
Respondent City of Boise argues that the relevant legislation
contemplates the separate land use actions in a subdivision
"package" will move through the system at different rates.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,, . I.
Thus, it~ is to be expected that developers will appear before
P&Z in one capacity before other applications that are part of
the same package are considered.
In the opening Brief, Petitioners state that: " [c]oncern
for the impartial exercise of quasi-judicial authority, in
appearance as well as fact, requires that decision makers
disqualify themselves where bias can be shown." Petitioners'
Brief at 24. Petitioners' lengthy discussion of cases in which
ex ap rte contact was found to invalidate decisions involves
situations in which a member of the decision-making entity had,
clearly pre-judged the issue before it and had evidenced that
pre-judgment by arguing for or against an issue before the
entity. For example, in Thornbury Township v. W.D.D., Inc., 119
Pa. Commw. 74, 546 A.2d 744 (1988), a town supervisor's refusal
to abstain from voting on the approval of a developer's
application was held to be improper because the supervisor
evidenced bias by .appearing before the zoning board, .with
counsel, to oppose the application. There are no allegations of
similar behavior in the present case. Petitioners present an
interesting argument in this regard, but it seems to arise from
Petitioners' dissatisfaction with the way the City of-Boise does
business. This Court is unable to find merit in Petitioners'
arguments regarding ex parte contact.
Next, Petitioners argue that both the rezone and initial
zoning upon annexation were improper because the uses allowed
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• ~ -
under the newly established zoning are incompatible with
preexisting uses. Petitioners state that, pursuant to Boise's
Comprehensive Plan and City Code, the Boise City Council may
only approve zoning actions when the new land. uses would be
compatible with existing land uses.
From a review of the record, it appears that Boise City's
finding that the zoning actions were compatible with
surrounding, existing land uses is supported by substantial
evidence.
When Respondent Brighton applied for annexation, the
existing zoning was RT, or Rural Transitional. The purpose of
the RT zone is to identify lands within the area of city impact
that "presently are not served by urban services." Ada County
Code § 8-4A-1. When such urban services are extended, "it is
appropriate to rezone RT lands to applicable urban zoning
classifications and to permit development" in accordance with
applicable plans. Id. The Boise City Council made itself aware
of the pending provision of urban services to the area proposed
to be annexed before it made its decision. This is apparent
from a review of the hearing transcript of the Boise City
Council Meeting held October 18, 1993, and from a review of the
Annexation Staff Report. The Staff Report addresses roads,
sewer, water, fire protection, and street lights on page 3. The
Report concludes that "[i]nfrastructure needs are readily
available to service this area .".
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•.
Petitioners state that "[t]he only evidence presented
regarding compatibility was the Mayor of Eagle's uncontroverted
testimony that such uses would be damaging." That does not
appear to be an accurate statement. Rather, it appears that the
city took into account the impact the development would have on
surrounding land uses. The Annexation Staff Report and the
Rezone Staff Report both describe-the existing land uses to the
North, South, East and West and state that the area "is in
transition from agricultural use to residential." There was
also testimony regarding compatibility at the Boise City .Council
Meeting held December 7, 1993.
It appears that the City Council was furnished with
information both in support and in opposition to the requested
zoning classifications. Boise City's finding that the requested
zoning classifications were compatible with existing uses
appears to be supported by substantial evidence and will not be
upset by this Court on review.
Petitioners represented at oral argument that the rezoning
would have disastrous effects on local traffic patterns and that
those effects had not been taken into account by Boise City when
it approved the rezone and zoning upon annexation. However,
Boise City, before approving the requested zoning
classifications, considered the potential traffic impacts on
both Chinden Boulevard and Eagle Road. The record indicates
that a traffic impact study was prepared by Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
l__I
Brighton's consultant, Dobie Engineering, Inc., and reviewed and
approved by the Idaho Department of Transportation. That fact:
is reflected in the Subdivision Staff Report. The traffic
impact study concluded that "[w]ith the completion of proposed
developments in the study area and planned improvements in the
intersection [of Chinden Boulevard and Eagle Road], the overall
level of service will maintain a "B" rating, and volume to
capacity ratio of the approaches will achieve acceptable
standards through the year 2014." Dobie Engineering Traffic
Study at 13 (Sept. 9, 1993) The Ada County Highway District
also reviewed the preliminary subdivision plat and approved it
for traffic purposes. ACRD Memorandum to Commission from
Development Services (Oct. 22, 1993). The Annexation Staff
Report notes that "[t]he intersection of Eagle Road and Chinden
Blvd. is currently undergoing a major rebuilding." The Rezone
Staff Report states, similarly, that the Idaho- Department of
Transportation "has plans to widen Chinden Blvd. in the near
future and the Eagle Rd. Chinden Blvd. intersection is currently
undergoing a major rebuilding. These two factors should be
sufficient to mitigate the increased traffic from this
development."
Petitioners contend that roads surrounding proposed
developments must always be ready to handle the impacts of
increases in traffic before development begins. This. Court,
although it may agree with the efficacy of Petitioners'
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 14
• •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
contention in theory; does not find support for the proposition
that the City may only proceed legally in such a manner.
In light of the above discussion, it appears that Boise
City's finding that the development package was .compatible with
the area highway infrastructure is supported by substantial
evidence.
Petitioners' final argument is that Boise City's findings
of fact and conclusions of law are inadequate to support all
three land-use decisions at issue here. Petitioners cite I.C.
~ 67-6535(b) in support of their argument. Petitioners also
provide a discussion of Oregon land use law as it applies to the
sufficiency of findings.
I.C. ~ 67-6535(b) provides as follows:
The approval or denial of any application provided for
in this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by
a statement in the form of findings of fact and
conclusions of law that explain the criteria and'
standards considered relevant, state the facts relied
upon, and explain the justification for the decision
based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth.
Because subdivision plat review is governed by I.C. ~ 50-1301
et. sec.., "Plats and Vacations", rather than the Local Land Use
Planning Act as quoted above, Boise City was not required to
provide findings of fact for the subdivision approval.
As for the rezone and annexation and zoning, a review of
the record reflects that the City's findings of fact were
adequate pursuant to I.C. § 67-6535(b). Ordinance 5536, which
implemented the rezone, includes written findings of fact.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 15
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ordinance 5544, which implemented the annexation and zoning,
adopts the findings of fact and recommendations of the Boise
City Planning Department staff. Petitioners ask the Court to
adopt Oregon's requirements for findings of fact .and conclusions
of law in land use decisions. This Court declines to do so.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Boise City's November 19, 1994 and
April 19, 1994 subdivision approvals, and January 11, 1994
annexation and rezone application approvals, are AFFIRMED. AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22-~ay of April, 1996.
.` ,~ )~-1
TH MAS F. NEVILLE
District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Page 16
,~;;.:
•
r
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I do hereb certif that on the d.
y y ~01~'' day of April, 1996,
I caused to be mailed, by United States Mail, one copy of the:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER as notice pursuant to Rule 77(d)
I.C.R. to each of the attorneys of record in this cause in
envelopes addressed as follows:
MONA DOBARAN MACK
MOORE & McFADDEN CHARTERED
999 MAIN. ST STE 910
BOISE ID 83702
MARGERY WEIR SMITH
DEPUTY BOISE CITY ATTORNEY
P O BOX 500 '
BOISE ID 8370"1
WALTER H BITHELL
HURRAY D FELDMAN
HOLLAND & HART
P O BOX 2527
BOISE ID 83701
JOHN TRAYLOR
3 COPIES
J. DAVID NAVARRO
Clerk of the District Court
Ada County, Idaho
By l1'~ ""~ V ) `'~
Deputy C y rk
MEMORANDUM DECISION-AND ORDER - Page 17
~.
-~ c
~~ ~~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
AGREED ISSUES
1994/1995
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FAILED TO FILE THE FOURTH GtUARTER
FORM 941, THE ADJUSTMENT IS REFLECTED IN THIS REPORT.
WAGE
WITHHOLDING $ 48,252.47
FICA 64,394.83
MEDICARE 75,060.08
*~:**
VOLUNTEER FIREMAN CONVERTED TO EMPLOYEES WAGE
No FICA-3509
PARK WORKER-LLOYD EGBERT WAGE
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE (NO PLAN) WAGE
TOTAL AGREED WAGES 1994
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FAILED TO FILE THE FOURTH QUARTER
FORM 941. THE ADJUSTMENT IS REFLECTED IN THIS REPORT.
WAGE
WITHHOLDING $ 56,992.81
FICA 72,180.74
MEDICARE 16,880.98
. ****
DISALLOWANCE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE (NO PLAN)
WHICH EXPIRED 12-31-94,
PARK WORKER- LLOYD EGBERT WAGE
TOTAL AGREED WAGES 1995
Total adjustments .$.276,178.56
Penalty 43.22
276,221.78
Less Deposits: 9412 <127,707.75>
9512 <146,054.89>
Amount Due on Agreed Report $ 2,459 14
$519,313.14
39,702.50
2,200.31
246.00
$561,461.95
$582,102.74
1,034.00
2,470.00
$585,606.74
s..
• •
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION OF RON YANKE
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-606 B 14. PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on May 7, 1996, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on
said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through a representative,
Gary Lee, and the City Council having heard and taken oral and
written testimony, the City Council considered the initial Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the Council meeting on May 21,
1996, and the Council desiring changes to the initial Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law the City Council of the City of
Meridian having requested that those changes be made, the City
Council of the City of Meridian makes the following:
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for May 7, 1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the May 7, 1996, hearing and the initial Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law considered and changed at the May 21, 1996
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW page 1
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION
•
meeting; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper,
radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. 1. b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
3. That Ordinance 11-9-606 B. 14. reads as follows:
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION SYSTEM: In each subdivision the
subdivider shall provide by underground tile, or other
like satisfactory underground conduit, pressurized
irrigation water to each and every lot within the
subdivision; that the pressurized irrigation system
shall be constructed and installed at the same time as
the domestic water lines, but shall not necessarily be
in the same trenches; that there. shall be no cross
connections between the domestic water lines and .the
irrigation water lines that do not comply with section
4-143 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian; that the City Engineer is hereby authorized
and directed to establish rules and regulations and
standards for pressurized irrigation systems and that
all pressurized irrigation systems shall comply with
those standards, rules and regulations. Provided,
however, that the requirements of this subsection may be
waived upon proof that any particular lot, parcel, or
piece of land does not have water rights in an existing
irrigation district.
Also, the above requirement may be waived if the
subdivider either 1) deeds to the City land for a well,
drills the well and places the well on line with the
City water system, including the necessary pumps,
piping, valves, pressure equipment, and all other
equipment necessary, and which well depth and capacity
are determined by the City; or 2) the subdivider
deposits, gives and grants sufficient funds with the
City to purchase all necessary equipment to put the well
on line with the City water systems. In many
subdivisions, the latter option may be preferable to the
City so that the City may combine funds to drill and
equip one large well to service several subdivisions,
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION Page 2
• •
rather than have several smaller wells of less capacity.
4. That the Applicant, Ron Yanke, has requested that
Railside Subdivision be granted a variance from the above
pressurized irrigation requirement; that there are thirteen lots
in the proposed subdivision.
5. That the Applicant states in the variance application
that this property is intended for the development of a Light
Industrial Park; that the proposed landscaping is not enough to
require a pressurized irrigation system; that alternatives to this
type of system are more appropriate; that pressurized irrigation
systems .have not been required for other industrial projects in
Meridian, namely, Layne Industrial Park and Locust Grove
Industrial Park; that the parcel is zoned for light industrial and
that this application would not be a special privilege to the
owner since the Layne Industrial Park variance from the
pressurized irrigation was granted and the City has granted such
variances for other industrial parks.
6. The entire property in question is described in the
variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
7. That the property in the area where the variance is
requested is zoned Light Industrial.
8. That the Applicant does own the property.
9. That the Application was reviewed and comments made by
the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Central District Health
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW page 3
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION
~ ~
Department and the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District and are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
10. That the Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles, and
the City Engineer, Gary Smith, may submit comments and they shall
be incorporated herein as if set forth in full, if submitted.
11. That the Applicant's representative, Gary Lee, of JUB
Engineers, testified at the May 7, 1996 public hearing that
roughly one acre of landscaping on this 23 acre piece of land to
be developed will need landscaping, this includes 12,000 square
feet on Locust Grove Road and about 12,000 square feet along Pine
Street, with approximately 26,000 to 30,000 square feet for the
developed lots (which are 13 in number); that the Applicants
contention is that the amount of irrigation required for this 23
acres is minimal and that an acre of landscaping on the 23 acres
of land is sufficient; and that the request for a variance from
the pressurized irrigation is warranted.
12. That was no other testimony heard at the May 7, 1996
hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That. all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION Page 4
• •
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to
Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinance.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take
judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that
must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows:
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of
the provisions of this Ordinance would be clearly
impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the
subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as
to the specific provision or requirement involved;
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make strict
compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the
circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements
of this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the
achievement or objectives of this Ordinance.
c. That the granting of the specified variance will be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION Page 5
~ ~
the Idaho code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of
nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Development Plan.
6. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or
profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if this
variance is granted since the Applicant would avoid the cost of
installing the pressurized irrigation.
7. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the
pressurized irrigation, it is specifically concluded as follows:
a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of
the provisions of the pressurized irrigation Ordinance
would clearly be unreasonable, but the City Council has
granted some variances of this Ordinance for other
industrial parks.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
pressurized irrigation Ordinance would not result in
extraordinary hardship to the Applicant; that some other
property owners and developers of land in the industrial
zone are not required to meet.
c. That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental
to the public's welfare or possibly injurious to the
public.
d. That the granting of this variance would not violate the
Idaho Code.
e. That the granting of the variance would not have the
effect of altering the interests and purposes of the
pressurized irrigation Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Development Plan.
8. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance
from 11-9-606 B 14., Pressurized Irrigation, should be approved.
9. It is further concluded, that the City does have the
authority to waive the pressurized irrigation requirement and
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION Page 6
~ ~
grant variances thereto.
10. Therefore, it is concluded that the variance from 11-9-
606 B 14. should be approved.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-9-
606 B 14. is approved.
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED•
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION Page 7