HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 01-21 Pre
Meridian City Pre-Council MeetinQ
Januarv 21 , 2003
The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, January 21, 2003, by President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: William Nary, Keith Bird, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie
McCandless.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: William Nichols, David McKinnon, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Ken
Bowers, Bill Musser, Dean Willis, and Will Berg
Item 1.
Roll-call Attendance:
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
X Tammy de Weerd X
X Cherie McCandless X
o Mayor Robert Corrie
De Weerd: (Inaudible) Tuesday, January 21st at 6:00. Mr. Berg will you call roll?
Item 2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Adoption of the Agenda so any changes?
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Item Number 2 is the -
De Weerd: Item 3?
Item 3.
Continued from January 14, 2003: Discussion I Decision on MUBS
Billing Directive:
Bird: Item 3, I'm sorry is the continued from January - the discussion of the decision on
MUBS Billing Directive. I believe we probably need to pull that from the agenda
because of the circumstances of this happening in the MUBS Department here over the
weekend.
De Weerd: Yes I talked with Leslie and also with Gary. We're going to move that to
February 4th.
Bird: Okay we'll move that to February 4th. With those notes, I would move that we
approve the agenda as changed.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 2 ol21
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and second roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4.
Discussion of Fire Department Plan Review and Inspection Fees:
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 4 the discussion of Fire Department Plan Review and
Inspection Fees. Kenny - I want to thank Kenny and Joe. Joe has spent a lot of time
working with these, looking at what the area departments have done and also thank
Gary's staff for helping him. I know that Brad has spent some time with these fees and
so it's been a real collaborative effort so thanks Kenny.
Bowers: You bet you.
De Weerd: You guys are going about this the right way. Just one other footnote is it's
kind of at the point now where we need you to take a critical look at it before Joe and
Kenny get this out into the community for feedback so that if there's any red flags prior
to sending it out we can take care of those before hand. Okay thanks Kenny.
Bowers: Thank you. Madam President and City Council Members last year we were
approached to try to come up with some different ways to create revenue for the city.
We had contacted many of the other Fire Departments, other cities, and other rural
departments around us to figure out how they were creating revenue at this time, I
appreciate all the departments that gave us information it really helped out
tremendously on this. I know that you guys just received this like Friday so I know you
haven't had much time to decipher and go through it. I would like to turn it over to
Deputy Chief Joe Silva he can explain some high points to you on it and then if there's
any questions we'll sure be glad to answer any questions for you.
De Weerd: Thank you Kenny. Joe.
Silva: Thank you very much. What I would like to do is just take a few minutes to kind
of give you an overview what the fee schedule entails and then if we have any
questions I would like to respond to those. Basically, we would be looking at a fee
structure for physical residential commercial subdivisions. What we did would be - is
essentially took fees very close to Planning and Zoning and we would be looking at an
annexation fee 50 dollars, a Conditional Use Permit 50 dollars and the Preliminary Plat
at 160 dollars for the basic Preliminary Plat plus a dollar per lot. Larger projects would
be treated equivocally as compared to the smaller projects and similarity with the Final
Plat projects. Under the Fire Code Plan Review process, we've proposed a four-dollar
per head. First of all the Building Permit fee our Fire Code Plan Review fee would be
based on 25 percent of the Building Permit fee as currently adopted the City of
Meridian. We would also utilize a four-dollar per head fire sprinkler inspection fee.
Currently the state has been doing this for two dollars a head however, they have just
recently as of about two months ago are only doing plan review for that charge of two
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 3 of 21
dollars per head with no subsequent (inaudible) inspections to verification to verify the
installation. We're proposing a four-dollar per head sprinkler inspection fee and the
same with fire alarm inspection devices. Final inspection fees 50 dollars per hour if it
goes beyond a dollar one hour in length most typically that would cover our final
inspection time. Daycare inspections are listed and they're 20 dollars. They are
actually - that's actually called out in State Statute so we have no ability to change that
same with fireworks inspections at 25 dollars per inspection of a fireworks stand and
125 for a permit of public display of fireworks. More commonly, we are encountering
inspections outside normal working hours. A prime example is inspections at the
business portion of the St. Luke's West Hospital. They want those inspections done on
the off hours on fire alarm systems. Inspections required or requested by outside
agencies sometimes we're requested by a business owner to do an inspection because
an outside licensing agency is requesting an inspection. Flammable liquid storage
tanks it would be for one or two tanks and we usually have about one of these occur per
year it would 200 dollars for the plan review and fuel inspections. Then permits for
installations or removals would be 50 dollars for one hour. Typically, we observe the
removal of a flammable liquid storage tank from the ground. Hazards mat - HAZMAT,
50 dollars per hour. We standardize our cost recovery for when we have engines or
other apparatus assigned to a call sometimes it comes into play where we have juvenile
fire setters or somebody who's been convicted of an arson where we are going to be
able to do some cost recovery. The second page essentially gives us some subdivision
examples, various lot sizing and in a spreadsheet manner kind of gives you what the
cost of different subdivisions at a plan review process would entail in terms of fees.
Then the - under, actually it's listed under annual revenue the last line at the bottom.
The average plan review fee for a subdivision would be about 402 dollars with a total
review fee per lot of about 12 dollars would be the (inaudible). The next page is some
examples of some commercial projects to give you an idea how our fees would impact
particular projects. The only reason I selected these projects is there kind of - their
values kind of spread across what we typically deal with. You can kind of picture in your
mind the size of these buildings to kind of give you some idea of the plan review fees
involved. To give you an example Ponderosa Elementary School would be about 7800
dollars so you can kind of see there what our plan review inspection fees would be for
the different components that we deal with. Of course, we would not charge the
Meridian Police Department for the plan review but just to give you an idea in terms of
size of building. The next page back essentially what we did is a revenue projection
based on our - and I might want to kind of point out the fact that this based on this
project this plan review fee has been in progress for some time. We were working off of
a full years business, which we've used it - we had to base it on 2001 as being a full
year of activity that we could base our projections on. Based on 01' estimates we would
be looking at about 33,000 dollars of annual revenue for the Planning and Zoning
function that the Fire Department does and the next section down is our commercial
applications. It's kind of broken out by the different components that we would be
looking at having fees on for a total of approximately 114,000 dollars annual income
projected based on 01' statistics. The next page back is essentially our comparison to
other agencies operating in the valley and how do we compare to them. I might add
that Nampa Fire took our template here that we've proposed and we put in front of
Council this evening. They're looking at enhancing some of their fees for their different
aspects of their plan review and inspection process. I have attached the City of Boise
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 4 of 21
Planning and Zoning services, commercial plan check fee schedule there's a couple of
pages there so you kind of get an idea what is going on there. Then the last page is
actually, what it costs us to put (inaudible) whether it's myself or if we were able to
actually get an inspector fire captain. We've actually allowed for all overhead costs a
percentage of our administrative our secretary. That actual - our total cost per hour if
we go overhead is about 47 dollars to 47.99 per hour depending on what rank that
person possesses. Currently, we have a proposal in front of us from Rich Greene Fire
Protection Services that is allowing - it would allow us to do some contract plans review
at a cost of 75 dollars per hour. Basically, real quickly that's an overview of what we're
proposing for fee schedule.
De Weerd: Thank you Joe. Council do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Joe, I guess one of the things in presenting this out there into the community is
are the fees here just an increase in the fees and the services are already being done or
are we increasing the services along with the fee?
Silva: We would hope that we could decrease our turnaround time so we would be in
approval of service levels. Currently we are delivering all the services with the
exception of at not cost - with the exception of fire, sprinkler inspections. We are not
charging for that. However, we have just had a shift from state responsibility for fuel
inspections has been placed upon the local agency and we're not getting any revenue
for that at all. We would be able to improve our service levels.
Nary: So are the fees then essentially a better recruitment of the cost that we're
expending already?
Silva: That's correct.
Nary: So maybe one of the things I guess as the Chief had proposed is it increasing
revenue but I guess I look at it and I don't know what the business community would do
but to me we're really increasing the revenue as much as decreasing our lost costs that
we're expending in doing these services anyway. By barely making it more in line with
what we're already accomplishing but really making it (inaudible) it's own way is that
really what -
Silva: That's correct. That's correct I'm sorry if I've-
Nary: -- no I think it's great I just don't want the public to think that all we're trying to do
is raise revenue. It's not that we're trying to make it really pay for itself, which is really
ultimately a better way to go. The only other thing is I didn't notice in here was what
percentage of increase are we talking about. Ultimately, we'll have to advertise the
fees, I was just curious as - some of these I'm assuming are 100 percent changed
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 5 of 21
because they didn't have any fee previously, and then some of them are certainly an
increase of what it was previously.
Silva: We currently by State Statute have the ability to charge for daycares and firework
stands inspections. The city may charge a Fireworks Permit fee but there is no fee
that's charged by the Fire Department for a firework stand inspection. Present we
charge no fees for any of the work that we do.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Madam President just to clarify that that revenue's going into the general fund so
it is a general fund item 25 dollars inspection per firework stand isn't a lot of money that
- but that is a general fund. It doesn't go specifically to a department but it goes to a
general fund revenue. It is being collected and it is being inspected.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary I think too as we started talking about this initial items that
compelled the Fire Department to start examining this is one that the timeliness of the
reviews and the inspections. The workload of the staff as it is now and as we did the
development assessment survey, there was mention of inspection in that and kind of a
desire by the building community to have a more expedient process. This just goes
back to supporting that that growth does help support the cost to bring the growth here,
Nary: And I totally agree I didn't want as they go out and present this into the
community to make it appear that simply it's a revenue gathering measure it's not. It's
really trying to make it pay it's owns way and we're already doing it. With the increased
fees, we should hopefully be able to have more people to be able to perform those
functions to get it done quicker, get the turnaround faster, and benefit the development
community as well. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that really we weren't just
increasing revenue we were simply trying to recoup the cost that we're already
expending now.
De Weerd: Exactly.
Nary: The only other question I had is when you set the permit for installations and
removals on the I guess it's the second page of the document it says 50 dollars per hour
for the first hour and 30 dollars for each additional hour. I heard you say that you only
have inspectors go out for removals and not installations so what-
Silva: The 200 -
Nary: -- so why am I paying 50 dollars for an installation.
Silva: It would be 200 dollars for the tank and the plan review. That's covered under
flammable liquid storage tanks installations. Occasionally what we get is removals and
it's very rare but we do occasionally get removals. I actually should delete the word
installation.
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 6 of 21
Nary: Right so it's just a permit for removal, it's a different process and fee for the
installation.
Silva: Yes that's correct yes, the 200 dollars -
Nary: - I just didn't want someone to think I'm paying for something that I'm not getting
anything for.
Silva: Yes it's one or two tanks for 200 dollars and then 50 dollars per hour for a
removal for the first hour and 30 dollars if it runs into a second hour rate it doesn't
typically run that long.
Nary: Great, thank you.
De Weerd: Council any other questions? Do you feel comfortable having Kenny and
Joe bring this out into community for public comment?
Bird: Sure absolutely.
McCandless: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay thank you so much. Go ahead, if you have any specific people that
you feel should get a copy of this please let Kenny know or Joe so that they can get a
copy to those individuals or organizations. Thank you very much Joe. Kenny anything
else? Okay.
Item 5.
Discussion of Lee Centers Project (fka Powder River Subdivision):
De Weerd: Okay Item Number 5 discussion of Lee Centers Project. Gary do you or
Brad.
Watson: Madam President and Council Members I'm not quite sure how you want to
handle this if you want me to summarize past correspondence in meetings or if you
would like the developer to present their proposal first. I can do either one. I can simply
answer questions afterwards. I do have a list of questions, concerns, and required
information that we would need if this proposal moved forward and the City of Meridian
was involved.
De Weerd: Okay Brad I think maybe if you could give just a summary we'll ask the
developer if he would like to share anything and then we'll go over some of your staff
comments that we received I believe today.
Watson: Okay a summary may be a little bit nebulous. We've met with Mr. Centers and
his engineer in various formats a couple of times over the last couple of months.
They're looking at development south of Victory Road on Linder Road in the area that
was formerly known as Powder River Subdivision that went to the county in the summer
of 2001 and was denied ultimately. We had at their request meetings regarding water
and sewer facility issues in various forms. Based on last weeks meeting I'm not quite
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 7 of 21
sure what the present proposal is. It started out as a 39-lot urban density development
on 240 some acres or something like that but I think as the meeting progressed last
week we were looking at more than 39 lots. There is a whole array of issues everything
from them constructing their own private water and sewer facilities to the city providing
both water and sewer facilities under different operation maintenance and financial
arrangements. Do you want to hit on that range or-
De Weerd: Yes. At this point, yes. You might explain Cherie, Keith, and I were here
when Powder River came through originally but Bill Nary wasn't. Were you on Planning
and Zoning at the time? You might give an overview of what has changed. We had an
original proposal a couple of years ago. What was that and what has changed with this
proposal?
Watson: The proposal in 2001 included approximately 215 single-family lots on about
80 acres. The proposal at the time was that they would construct a community scale
centralized Wastewater Treatment System and a community water system. At that
time, we provided written comments and testimony to Ada County Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of Commissioners recommending denial of those because
of the provision of private companies providing centralized sewer and water services
within our impact area. There are a handful of other issues that we commented on at
that time regarding impacts to our sewer master plan. Ultimately it was denied and this
current proposal again all I have is an 8 Yo by 11 sheet of paper that shows 39 lots I
don't have anything in writing. Some of the discussions revolved around only those 39
lots although there was some discussion last week in a meeting that Mayor Corrie,
Council Member de Weerd, Gary Smith, Brad Hawkins-Clark and I attended with the
developer and his engineers in which they were talking about an initial I think 39 acres
urban density development followed by a number of lots every year 20 to 20 or 40 one
of those even numbers.
De Weerd: Twenty.
Watson: Twenty until that development was built out. In those discussions, we had
talked about them constructing a public water supply a well to our standards and
potentially the city owning or not owning but operating and maintaining that system.
Where when they annexed that well would somehow revert to the city and there would
obviously be a lot of financial negotiations for that to occur. My initial interpretation was
that they were going to still pursue the community scale centralized Wastewater
Treatment System but the idea was floated of pumping sewage from this proposal down
to the Bear Creek lift station which is a whole nother can of words. I can go over that
too but I think that's kind of the range of what we're looking at. There probably were
some intermediates between those two extremes but are there any particular issues or
questions on this I could answer?
De Weerd: Council.
Bird: No this is a new development (inaudible).
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 6 ol21
De Weerd: Okay Mr. Centers or your representative. There's no application file at this
point is that correct? Okay. Will you identify yourself and your address?
Boyle: You bet. Council Members Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West
Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. Would you mind if I borrowed the tripod for a minute if I
promise to put it back when I'm done?
De Weerd: As long as you promise.
Boyle: Mayor and City Council Members to start with I want to talk about just a few
points related to this vicinity map and I also have a handout that I would like to present
to the Council here in just a moment. First of all this particular project to orient you
some of you that aren't aware of where it's at is located on Linder Road and it's
approximately half a mile south of Victory. The Bear Creek Subdivision is indicated on
this map in the location of my pointer here. The Bear Creek Subdivision as the crow
flies would be located roughly a quarter a mile away from the property that Mr. Centers
owns. Mr. Centers owns the piece that comprises of just over 150 acres in this area.
The original subdivision that was referred to consisted of just over 70 acres of what Mr.
Centers owned and that particular project was roughly 215 homes. That project went
through quite a few different hearings, had quite a bit of input from the City Council of
Meridian, from Meridian staff related to various issues that Brad touched on. At this
point in time, there have been a couple of years that have passed since and some
things have changed around Meridian. The developer is proposing at this point in time
a 16-acre development with 39 lots. That's the proposal that he would like to present to
the Council this evening. If I could take a moment, I'll pass out an exhibit that
demonstrates that. This packet that I've provided you with, the first page of it
represents what Mr. Centers is proposing as a Preliminary Plat for this particular
property. The second page of the packet represents the Preliminary Plat with the
boundary area of the property, the overall property that Lee Centers owns. The square
boundary, roughly square and then in the southeast corner it's clipped by an existing
lateral. That represents his holdings right now that are Mr. Centers ownership. This
particular project that he's proposing is in a small area of that. There are several
existing parcels of land that he has accumulated to make the total 152 acres. The
particular development that he's proposing right now would be contained on one of
those parcels of land that he presently owns. The remainder of the packet represents
information that has been provided by Quality Water Systems, which is a wastewater, a
company that provides wastewater treatment systems for subdivisions in communities.
The first page lists projects that are either under operation with these treatment facilities
or under construction or approved within Ada County. This isn't a concept that is new to
Ada County as far as us being the first time this has been proposed. Ada County has
approved a various of these systems throughout the county and you can see a listing
there of those systems. One item of interest on the particular system that is referenced
here this particular system is the wastewater treatment collection system for the City of
Hailey. Hailey, Idaho this is their wastewater treatment system as a quality water
system 6,200 people on a quality water treatment system. Again, it's not something that
is a new concept. I think in our discussions with Brad he has also had opportunity
through his education and other areas to review these types of systems. From a
technical aspect, he seemed to be comfortable with this type of system performing the
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page g ol21
way that indicates for sewage treatment. The remainder of that talks about a quality
water system and basically the - hopefully answers some of the questions that you may
have regarding how the systems are maintained, what the financial operating costs are
for these systems based on a per home basis. The way that Lee would set this up is
that the homeowners would be charged a monthly fee as part of their Homeowners
Association dues which would essentially be a fee that would be comparable to what
the city might charge for their sewer treatment billing to existing homeowners. That's
what the next information provides. The final provisions in there are a service provider
contract that is just a standard contract that they sent over which is one that they
typically enter into with the developer or other entity to provide those sewer treatment
services. Now to back up just a moment and Lee, Mr. Centers the developer does not
want this to be known as what it was formerly known as because this is a different
proposal that's in front of you so I won't even mention the name. It's been batted
around because he probably wouldn't want me to. This particular project again is 39
homes. I believe you've had some handouts from the Planning Department in - I was
going through a list of meetings that we've had. The reason we're in front of you is we
want to get the City Council's input because ultimately in your response to Ada County
at least in the past on projects that have been within the area of impact they do look
closely in your input. Mr. Centers he has not applied or submitted any applications
however to date we've had eight meetings with staff, the Mayor, the Fire District et
cetera to talk to them and discuss the issues around this project to try and reach
consensus with everyone. We've met with Mr. Watson, with Gary Smith, Brad Hawkins,
Joe Silva, all of them are here, and they can vouch for that as well. We're also here in
front of you tonight. Essentially, where we are we at and where does this project come
from? When we met with staff this last time, and the Mayor was involved in that
discussion as well there was a lot of discussion related to the potential of a city well
located on this site. That would be let me get a full size exhibit here. It would be
somewhere in this northern area here that there would be a well constructed to city
specifications. There was a lot of discussions about the well and dedication of that well
to the city and (inaudible) financial obligations to construct a well and then dedicate it to
the city. At this point in time, what the developer would like to propose is to proposed
the 39 lot development only, construct a what would essentially be a community well
however would be constructed to Meridian City standards for a well. Really, what we're
asking for is a favorable recommendation from the City of Meridian for this project.
Then over the upcoming year or two Mr. Centers has a project that he can begin
developing in recouping some of his costs into the land and that will give us some time
to work with the city on the well, the issues of dedication of the well and eventually what
would be the project as a whole. Mr. Centers eventually would like to see this entire
150 acres developed into urban type densities. Now with that said, the existing zoning
on the overall 152 acres is RUT in the county. RUT allows for a minimum lot size of five
acres. Therefore, Mr. Centers is faced with a couple of options. One, he could develop
under the current zoning standards of the county and come in with a subdivision on the
entire 150 acres that were essentially five acre lots developed to more of a rural type
standard with individual well and septic systems on those lots. That's based on his
current zoning in the county within his property. Another option that we talked about
with the city staff is Ada County also has a provision within the RUT zone that you can
cluster buildable lots in an area of the site and kept the remainder in open space until
services are available. With this proposal in front of you tonight, Lee is proposing to
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 10 0121
request a zone change with the county on the 16 acres only not the entire 152 but the
16 only to an R4 zoning designation in the county, which essentially allows him to
develop an urban style development here. This would be very similar to the
development that you would see if he used his RUT cluster option as far as the number
of homes. It would be roughly the same number of homes. It would be slightly less if
he came in with the cluster development under the present RUT zoning designation,
Basically, what he's proposing is a development that is very similar to what he's already
afforded based on the existing zoning. However, he wants to keep the remaining land
in RUT for now in evidence of his good faith to continue to work with the city staff on the
issues related to the well dedication and sewage issues with the Black Cat Trunk
extension. Over the next year or two, he could have time to negotiate with the city and
see if they can come to a reasonable conclusion on the remainder of his site. If they
can then at that point he would potentially come back with another Preliminary Plat for
the remainder of the site or whatever was negotiated. However, he wants to be clear
because it seemed like there was a little bit of confusion back and forth that right now all
he is asking for is 16 acres, 39 lots, which is similar to his existing entitlement based on
the RUT zone. What are the advantages and disadvantages? The scenario right now
with five acre minimum sizes in an RUT zone I believe would not only be detrimental to
Mr. Centers but detrimental to the city. If Mr. Centers were to develop this property with
five-acre lots, essentially what you've done is you've created an area where it's going to
be very difficult to develop at urban densities in the future. You're going to end up with
more of a scattering of potential people that may come in it's not going to be a
coordinated master plan development. Fire protection services are not as good
because you've got longer street runs serving fewer homes. You don't have the fire
protection that would be afforded being on a community well system. There are just a
lot of issues that surround those five-acre lots. Part of this that I would like to point out
is that Bear Creek Subdivision extends down to Victory on this line here. The rough
dark outline here represents city limits, current city limits. Now you can see there are
some lots south of Bear Creek in this location here that are developed to urban
densities. That particular development is called Kentucky Ridge and Lee might correct
me on this I believe that came in late 90's, okay maybe it was mid 90's then around 94'
on Kentucky Ridge. That particular development when it came in was granted approval
on a community sewage collection system under the same Comprehensive Plan that
you're operating under - well that the county is operating under right now which was
your 93' Comprehensive Plan. Same Comprehensive Plan and their on a community
sewage and community water system. Now the interesting thing at that point in time is
that in the conditions of approval with the county they indicated that at the time that
Meridian had sewer treatment services in this area that this subdivision would be
required to connect to city services. It was in Ada County's conditions of approval and
Mr. Centers has talked to them about that however the county is not going to enforce or
require annexation and connection into a city because of jurisdiction issues. There
weren't any teeth behind that condition of approval with the county. If there had been a
Development Agreement and annexation request on this particular piece for Kentucky
Ridge then Mr. Centers' piece of property could potentially actually be contiguous to city
limits right now had that Development Agreement been in place and Kentucky Ridge
connected in and been annexed into the city.
De Weerd: Mr. Boyle.
Meridian City Cou.ncil Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 110121
Boyle: Sure.
De Weerd: Could you summarize?
Boyle: You bet, so the issue is this. Right now this proposal in front of you based on
the surrounding development patterns that have already been approved in the county
here it makes the extension of the city southward in this area very difficult within this
entire square mile based on these existing county subdivisions that have been
previously approved. Mr. Centers is willing and has discussed this in the past to also
enter into an Annexation Agreement essentially. An agreement that he would indicate
on his plat that this particular subdivision would annex into the City of Meridian when
contiguous to the city or when requested by the city which would be a similar item to
what you see within Boise City's area of impact. They now require that on the face of
the plat that it include a note that annexation is requested into the City of Boise. The
City of Boise may annex this property at any time. He would also essentially include
that his CC&R's and would be willing to also incorporate them on the deeds for the
individual lot owners that annexation request. Where does he at right now? Lee would
like to just get an indication from the City Council of support on this particular project.
He would be willing to request that annexation for this project when the city is out in this
area. Then in the meantime be able to negotiate and work with the staff and City
Council on the future development on the well and upfront he would construct that well
so it would be something that the city could take over if we come to agreement on the
development of the remainder of the property.
De Weerd: So Mr. Boyle on your cluster densities is that what your 39 lots will be if-
Boyle: It actually I believe comes out to 30 or 31 lots if you took the overall property
because the county with their cluster developments allows you to have double the
density that you would normally get based on splitting it up into these large five-acre
lots. The reason they do that is to allow for cities to have a more consistent growth
pattern where it's not split up into parcels that are difficult to develop. This is more lots
than that by eight lots, eight or nine lots. The only reason for that is just so he could
essentially have lots on either side of the road based on the road network.
De Weerd: But on the cluster densities they allow you those number of lots until the city
is contiguous to the development is that correct?
Boyle: No until the city is contiguous it's actually until municipal services are available.
If you guys went out like Vienna Woods and brought a sewer or lead, in for that matter
they would allow that to further subdivide and develop. Yes, their restriction is if you
come in with a cluster you have to wait until the urban services are available to the
property or municipal services. Again that would be essentially in your hands I guess
and Lee's potentially to get those urban services of the property and allow for the future
development.
De Weerd: Okay any other questions or any questions other than my own?
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21. 2003
Page 120121
Boyle: Could I just raise one more point if I may?
De Weerd: Yes.
Boyle: Thank you. The only other point that I did want to mention is this property has
been in the urban services planning area for the City of Meridian since that 93' plan. In
otherwards, Lee has been in there for 10 years waiting for sewer and obviously there
are a lot of sewer issues with the city and a lot of growth and it's made it difficult to
extend trunk lines (inaudible) different areas. He just wants the City Council to realize
that he has waited some time for services to get there, now it's actually at a 10-year
period, and services still aren't there. This is still within the urban services planning
area and it is still shown as single-family residential in your Comp Plan for urban
densities of what is it Dave, three to eight dwelling units per acre. Thanks.
De Weerd: And I guess the risk you take if we take it out of our area of impact is then
you would only be allowed the urban density or the rural densities.
Boyle: Right.
De Weerd: We're well aware of the commitments to our area of impact but we also
have a budget that we have and a master plan that we have to stay within too. Staff do
you have any additional comments you would like to add. I guess at that point we need
to hear from Council and if there's any comments that they feel comfortable with making
tonight or if it's something that you need to think about. Gary.
Smith: Madam President and Council as Clint mentioned we have had several
meetings with Lee and with him. I think John Carpenter was at the last meeting.
There's also been a proposal by Lee that the city could become involved in the
operation and maintenance of this well under a separate agreement with a possible
future right of purchase our system grew out to that point. Lee did something similar to
this with the City of Nampa recently on subdivision on the boundary of their area of
impact. It's - I don't believe it's even in their area of impact but it's right on the
boundary. I don't know the legalities of this. I told Lee and Clint in one of our meetings
I assumed that there's not a problem because the City of Nampa has moved forward in
this agreement signed by Mayor Dale and it's a matter of record. This would give us the
opportunity to have input into the construction and the design of the well. There's also
been some discussion concerning the sewering of this property this 39 lots and whether
or not that could be pumped into the Bear Creek lift station. In visiting with Brad, that's
going to take some considerable investigation as to the capacities that are available.
Not only in the Ten Mile Creek Trunk Line but also in the eight-inch sewer that this Bear
Creek lift station discharges into on Overland Road. That may be the limiting factor in
that proposition. Those are two additional items that we've talked about that I wanted
you to be aware of if there's a decision that the Council makes that you want to proceed
on that basis. It is a as far as the well siting is concerned it does -
"'End Of Side One'"
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 13 0121
Smith: -- to our conceptual plan for well siding that we've established in our planning.
That's a good point.
De Weerd: Any questions or comments?
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I would like to have a little bit of time to think about it. I mean I think there
are obviously some pros and cons that are better than what was presented previously in
the unnamed other subdivision. I guess we need some time to digest it. Like I said I
think there's some good and bad and I think there's some - I appreciate Mr. Centers at
least coming forward with some proposals that looks - that there are some benefits to
the city and there is some give and take here to be looked at. I think that's very positive
and I appreciate that. I guess we need a little time to just think about. I don't know
whether we want to have a discussion again at Pre-Council on this issue or I think Mr.
Boyle and Mr. Centers wanted at least some idea what we're thinking about it to go
forward on. I don't know when we have time that week or two to put this back on. I
think you've brought some very good points and I appreciate your presentation and
some of these things that you've discussed. I do think as Council President de Weerd
said you kf10W we are concerned about the urban packed and we are committed to
getting services to those areas. Ten years is a long time so I think we at least need to
evaluate what you're presenting because I think it's like I said it's presented some very
good ideas as well.
Boyle: Thank you.
McCandless: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Gary what's your estimation now of how long it would take to get the
sewer system out there?
Smith: I don't have an estimation on the Black Cat Trunk extension from where we're
planning to build it right now. We're planning to take it to Franklin Road. South of
Franklin Road with one leg and on Ten Mile Road and the other leg would be just north
of the Interstate to serve the Eastborn property that's at the northeast corner of 1-84 and
Ten Mile Road crossing. That's as far as we have any plans to develop the Black Cat
Trunk.
McCandless: So actually they would have to maintain their own sewer system out there
until such time as we went out there is that correct?
Smith: Correct. The two alternatives that have been presented are to have an on-site
treatment facility such as has been proposed by Quality Water Systems. The second
alternative would be to pump into Bear Creek to pump into the Ten Mile Trunk.
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21. 2003
Page 14 ol21
McCandless: You haven't really had time to -
Smith: No, the option of pumping into the Bear Creek lift station as Brad mentioned
earlier it's going to take some study because it is somewhat complex and it's just a time
situation in getting that study done to see if there's a problem. If there is a problem,
where is the problem?
McCandless: Thank you.
Smith: You're welcome.
De Weerd: I guess these really do open up some policy questions. The pros and cons
listed by the staff in their memo of January 21st raises some of those questions. If the
Fire Department could also add to the pros and cons, I know that certainly a pro would
be the adequate fire flows that Mr. Centers had mentioned that he could do if he did the
city well. If they were to develop the five-acre sites, what kind of impact that would have
on your fire services out into those areas as well because of the type of fire protection
that they would need with those rural densities. I guess one more thing that if when we
visit this and I would suggest February 4th our meeting next week is just very packed. If
Gary you could let us know if they develop this in the rural densities the five-acres or
even the cluster how that would effect our ability to serve and plan the areas around
that. If that would be possible to have that information at that time as well is there
anything else? Mr. Bird did you have something?
Bird: No, I just echo you guys. I think this is a lot better than the former one was and
I'm not ready tonight to make a judgment on it. I would like to listen - hear some more
pros and cons.
De Weerd: Okay so we'll just put it back on February 4th and see if we can get the
additional information for consideration. If we could get that at - and I know it's a lot to
ask but if you can get that to Council your earliest convenience, so they have time to
really look at it so they can be prepared February 4th to give some direction.
Smith: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Smith.
Smith: I don't think we're going to have a hydraulic analysis done by them as far as the
impact on the sewer system.
De Weerd: That's fine Gary.
Smith: Brad was estimating several weeks four to six weeks at least to get all of those
things addressed.
De Weerd: That would be more an answer to if you could pump it into Bear Creek?
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21. 2003
Page 150121
Smith: Yes correct. Correct that's right.
De Weerd: Okay that's fine.
Smith: Okay. We'll have as much information as we can put together for you at that
time. Would that be at a Pre-Council Meeting again also?
De Weerd: Yes. Okay thank you very much.
Boyle: Thank you for your time this evening. February 4th then.
De Weerd: February 4th.
Item 6.
Discussion of Dust Abatement Ordinance:
De Weerd: Item Number 6 is the discussion of the Dust Abatement Ordinance. This
also, I believe that Mr. McKinnon had got it out to Council prior to the meeting. This
again is for your consideration before this goes out to the appropriate entities for their
review. Mr. McKinnon do you want to introduce the ordinance?
McKinnon: Thank you Madam President, Members of the Council you should have all
seen this once before. There may have been a few changes that have been made to it
and I'll just give you a brief background of what it is and why we need some sort of
ordinance. As you are all aware this last winter, we went through an inversion where
we had some unhealthy levels of air pollution. This would be an ordinance that would
help to eliminate the amount of particulate matter that's in the air. It goes through a
series of definitions. It goes through to explain what everything is what the PM-10 is
what PM-2.5 is. Those are just particulate matters and measurements of that and what
the effects of those are on the health, in the city and how they affect the people that live
within Meridian. Then it goes through some regulations. Just in a nutshell what those
regulations would be is that when somebody comes into apply for a Building Permit in
the City of Meridian or a Conditional Use Permit the applicant would have to sign a
piece of paper that - do you not have one Cherie?
McCandless: No.
McKinnon: Let me get you a copy.
De Weerd: Will do you have one?
Berg: Not with me it was emailed.
McKinnon: Basically in a nutshell what it would be is when someone comes in for a
Building Permit for the city they would have to sign a piece of paper acknowledging the
fact that there is a Dust Control Ordinance in place that they'll take their best measures
and they'll take procedures to keep the dust from being dispersed into the air or being
tracked out onto the road. Then when they would sign for that we would have a person
that's responsible so if there's any reason that there's a problem on any of their sites
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21. 2003
Page 160121
we could automatically go back to the Building Permit we have a name of the person
who signed as the responsible party. We know who we can contact to get that taken
care of and then we can contact that person and have them takes steps to eliminate the
dust that's come from their project. That was it's very simple to just say this is the
person who's in charge, this is the person that we contact and there's nobody that has
to go out on site necessarily to say who's in charge. This is who I need to talk to we
have a name and a number of who we can contact so that simplifies the enforcement.
Then as far as the enforcement is concerned it's very simply worded in the ordinance to
say that if you can see the dust is leaving the site or if you can see that there's mud
coming from the site the person is in violation. It's very simple because it's just a
standard definition there's no special measurements that need to be taken. If you can
see it you can take a picture of it it's occurred, it's very simple something that would
work. In the way, the ordinance is written right now there are no criminal penalties for
this. It's written to be that it would be a public nuisance, the city could declare a public
nuisance, and that they would have to eliminate the public nuisance that way the city
can go civilly after the person to get the property taken care of. They can appeal the
decision to the Council but that would not supercede the order to clean the area up. If
the city has to take action to clean, the property up because the person in charge would
not the city can take civil action towards that person that signed as the responsible party
to take care of the mitigation of the dust problem. Essentially, it's just a really simple
ordinance that says, somebody says come in and sign a contract, the city says we
understand we'll take care of it. If they don't take care of it the city can go to them and
say please take care of it. If they won't then the city has the ability to say you signed a
contract, you didn't take care of it now there's a fee for the problem that you've created
and that we cleaned up for you. That's the nutshell portion of it. There's a little bit more
to it. The Police Department would have a section of that ordinance that's on the very
last page of the ordinance you have in front of you. The part that the Police Department
would be in charge of and that would be for vehicles that don't have covers on the back
of their vehicles or if they don't have enough freeboard to keep dust or debris from flying
out of the back of their trucks. Obviously, that's a moving infraction and that would be
something that we at Planning and Zoning or the Public Work's Department would not
be able to pull someone over for. That's why it would need to be in the Police
Department's side of things. I have emailed this out to several different agencies. I
believe that Mr. Eaton has received a copy of it. I've contacted COMPASS and
COMPASS has reviewed it. Our City Attorney has reviewed it. It's something that has
gone out to several different agencies. We would like it to go to a wider group of people
at this time and would ask if you have any questions or any suggestions that you might
have that we could make for corrections before we send it out that would be wonderful.
De Weerd: Council any comments?
Bird: No.
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21. 2003
Page 17 of 21
Nary: In the other jurisdictions and in at least in this county day have you done a survey
for Garden City or Eagle and those (inaudible) Boise?
McKinnon: Boise has an ordinance. Garden City does not have an ordinance, Canyon
County was working on an ordinance, and they were tying that as well to their emissions
quality - air emissions from vehicles. COMPASS has been working with the multi-
county region you know Canyon County and Ada County with all the smaller
jurisdictions to adopt language similar to this tied to the air quality lawsuit that was
brought about a few years back.
Nary: This is similar to the Boise Ordinance?
McKinnon: This is very dissimilar from the Boise Ordinance. The Boise Ordinance is
very labor intensive. They do have specific standards, they've got someone that works
fulltime on it, and then they all refer to them somewhat that I guess ironically as the dirt
cop. That's exactly what he does is he goes around and busts people for bringing dirt
onto the roads. I wanted to keep us away from that and keep it a little more simple so it
wouldn't be as labor intensive so we would know who the person that's in charge and
we would just be able to contact that person.
Nary: Wouldn't there be a problem and I guess with the different development,
developers around town and construction companies that are the ones that are doing
the permitting you know I guess for each permit you would have an individual person
who would be the responsible party and that someone would have to report them. You
would have to figure out which permitie is the one that's responsible for that particular-
I mean there isn't - or would it be the general contractor?
McKinnon: Typically it's the general contractor.
Nary: So but the civil penalties that you're trying to enforce would go to the individual
general contractor not necessary the company but to them individually. He has
personal liability for the sub-contractors who track mud out on the roadway?
McKinnon: Typically how it works is if the general doesn't get the job done, it goes back
to the sub-contractor. It would be up to the general contractor to make sure that his
sub-contractors are aware of that.
Nary: So the agreement what you're saying is the agreement would be between the city
and the general contractor who requested the initial permit. He would be responsible
for enforcing against his subs to make sure they didn't-
McKinnon: That's correct.
Nary: -- (inaudible) the problem because he has personal liability we might be suing
this guy and (inaudible) as a means to pay for the cleanup and not his company? I
mean - I guess if I'm a general contractor I don't know that I want to come get that
permit anymore because that seems like a fairly onerous load to place on a general
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 16 of 21
contractor who mayor may not always have that level of control. I guess it depends on
the size of the project. Isn't there going to be some enforcement issues there?
McKinnon: You brought up a couple of good ones just in the last statement that you
made. Yes, this ordinance does need some tweaking it does need to go out to
agencies. I can understand the question that you've raised right there. I don't know if
there's a more simple way of going about that but typically if you have one person to
contact you don't necessarily have to file a lean or a claim civilly against that person. At
least there's some person that's on site or some person that's tied to this that we have
as a contact person. It could be worded such that that's the first person to contact and
then whoever did the violation could be the person that we go after. That would be
some more of the minor details too that there could be something worded that he's the
person to contact and whoever the violating party is would be the person the city goes
after.
Nary: I guess because my only concern is - I mean it's simpler for the city I think that's
true but it's not simpler for everybody else. In trying to make it simple for us we've
made it very onerous for everybody else which really would just tell everybody else just
go build some place else. That's such a hassle to deal with that but they just won't.
That's what I'm afraid of is that maybe the balance is a little bit too much towards
making it simple for the city's enforcement than it is to make it practical from the
developers standpoint or the builders standpoint. That way - I mean obviously we want
their cooperation and if they're voluntarily cooperating then it all works fine and that's
the ideal. I guess I don't want the balance to be so skewed that the city makes it easy
for us and everybody else thinks it's just a pain they're just not going to bother.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary I think that DEO has been running a number of workshops and
programs on this kind of dirt management and keeping dirt off the roads. Many of the
general contractors out there are already very aware of these stricter standards coming
down and their responsibility to it. The enforcement issue is one that we need to keep
in mind in this ordinance and maybe that's something you can further explore and
develop as you get feedback from the different entities and individuals that you send it
out to. Do make sure that you get it out to a number of general contractors for the
practicality of how they will manage that. I do believe that many of the general
contractors have been taking these classes and it's some kind of certification I just can't
recall what it was. I do know that those courses are going on through DEO.
Nary: And I don't disagree with it I think - because we're at the front end of this process
I think we will get a lot more input from the development community as to what they've
found works. Whether it's in Boise, Nampa or anywhere else of what they found works
and what they're willing to do so that we can strike the balance. I think from outside I
think it's real good I just think - I can see some issues down the road that might become
a problem and we'll just address that when we get there.
McKinnon: Okay.
De Weerd: I would like to see though a date of when you want comments back so that
we can get this going. We have let this kind of sit for a while and it is time to start doing
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 19 0121
it before we get into the heavy construction and the dry period where dirt isn't more of
an issue.
McKinnon: Okay if you guys want to set a date tonight I can the information back for
you. We would probably need at least a month for response time and to be able to
accommodate the request to change that they might have. If we could go a month from
tonight or more that would be appreciated by staff.
De Weerd: We can ask that it's the first meeting in March. Maybe March 4th does that
sound reasonable?
McKinnon: That would be fine. March 4th okay we'll have some additional information
for you on March 4th. Do you have any suggestions of whom else besides the Realtor's
Association, Building Contractors and some General Contractors in addition to
COMPASS?
Bird: Did AGC Intermountain Contractor get a copy down there?
McKinnon: ABC?
Bird: AGC.
McKinnon: AGC okay.
De Weerd: And maybe Brad or Gary can or Daunt can offer a couple of general
contractors that do work in this area that you could get them too specifically.
McKinnon: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay.
McKinnon: It shouldn't be a problem,
De Weerd: Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Item 7.
Discussion of Tully Skate Park:
Item 8.
Discussion of Infrastructure of Urban Renewal District:
De Weerd: I believe Elroy is here. Elroy were you here to discuss the Skate Park or
are you here on the bathrooms? We'll go ahead and have this item perhaps we can put
Item Number 8 onto the end of our Regular Agenda. Does that sound (inaudible) to
Council? Okay. Item Number 7 was the discussion of the Tully Skate Park. I'll give a
brief introduction and then turn it over to Elroy. Cherie had come to me and there was
some discussion of both the Park's Commission as well as some feedback coming out
of the Police Department of concern of some of the activities going on at the Skate
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 20 0121
Park. We did want to put it on the agenda tonight and just get an update on what's
happening and there's been something that have developed since this was placed on.
Elroy we'll go ahead and turn that over to you.
Huff: Thank you. Let me just say that there are some things going on at the Skate Park
that we've been observing for a little while now. We feel like that when we get finished
with the ordinance it will address some of those issues and will make it very undesirable
for people to come there that do not want to conform to the rules. We're just working
our way through that ordinance. We did have one graffiti problem early I think it was
just the day after Halloween on the first one. There have been a few things there and
then a few things related to the park in the general area that have happened as of
recently. I don't - I am working with the Police Chief on some stuff, We've had some
discussions about stuff and we're going to have some more. We think that when the
ordinance is put in that the police will then be empowered to do some things to help
regulate some things there and I think they'll feel real good about their ability to do so.
There are a few other things going on there I don't prefer to mention right now because
of confidentiality issues. Anything else?
McCandless: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Elroy is there any talk, plans, or anything like that about having a youth
board that can more or less govern themselves out there?
Huff: Yes we are working on that in the Commission. We have discussed that with the
Commission Members and about also including the School Resource Officers and in a
group of individuals in the schools children or kids from various ages to work on a
committee like that that has to with the Skate Park.
McCandless: Have you known of a plan like that in Eagle?
Huff: No, I'm not aware of something - some of the things in other cities I'm aware
about and some I'm not.
McCandless: It just sounds like it's something we should look into.
Huff: And that's the way the direction I think the Commission is going. Not necessarily,
any hard enforcement of problems like fencing it and not letting anybody in only in
certain hours we're not going there. We're going with community involvement,
community enforcement as well as certain things that the police can enforce to make
sure things work very well.
McCandless: I would think the users of the park could help in that too.
Huff: They will stand up as a group for certain issues. If there's something undesirable
going on in the park they will do that and sometimes if adults are there that helps out
too.
Meridian City Council Meeting
January 21, 2003
Page 21 of 21
McCandless: Okay thank you.
De Weerd: Captain Musser do you have anything you want to add?
Musser: Madam President, Members of the Council I don't have anything from the
Chief this evening reference this. I know there have been some ongoing discussions
but as to the specifics, I don't have anything for the Council at this point.
De Weerd: Okay thank you. I have spoke with each of you as well as the Mayor and
Commission. I know the Commission is working on an ordinance that will allow some
enforcement by the Police Department to follow up on some of the activities that have
been happening there. The Mayor had mentioned that a peer group was being
discussed as an opportunity for self-policing type of an issue, As I've talked to many of
you I have been in contact with the school district and they are interested in using this
as a class project. One at the high school level and one at the middle school level to
evaluate and further define the problem work with Elroy, Park's Department and the
Police Department, look at what surrounding communities are doing and then bring
back a solution from their perspective for addressing the issues there. We'll do it at
both the middle school and high school level and it should be interesting to see the
different perspectives but it's also a way to engage the youth into coming up with a
solution to something that's happening in their parks. I appreciate your help Elroy.
Huff: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thanks. Well I apologize that we went over on our Pre-Council but we
probably will take a five-minute break and then reconvene.
Nary: I move to adjoum the Pre-Council Meeting.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and second all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
mp 0:
~---- -
a:::3::! -- D
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
3 /1& / tJ3
DATE
8' ~
,,'li ;::
151. ....:f'/
"a ,,,'- "
'- o( '" ,[ , "
111/_ ".'jIT,. \\,\
'I/Ii I;n: ~";1\\\\\