HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 04-04 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting April 4, 2000
The Special Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:31 p.m., April 4, 2000, by Council President Keith Bird.
Members present: Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd.
Members absent: Robert Corrie.
Others present: Bill Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Gary Smith, Tom Kuntz, Ken Bowers, Will Berg.
Bird: Call the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., April 4, 2000. We’re going to try a little different agenda tonight to try to help our main Council meeting
get over a little sooner. So if we can have Department Heads, Department Reports, give the explanation of all the stuff they’re going to be doing, we won’t vote on anything, but all
we’ll have to do at the end instead of having all the explanation, we can just vote on it. Gary, do you want to start off with your bid results which is 18-A, Council.
18. Department Reports:
A. City Engineer – Gary Smith
Bid results for Drilling of City Well No. 21 Project:
Smith: Thank you, Mr. President, Council members. The first item I have is the bid results from the advertisement to drill City Well No. 21. City Well No. 21 will be located just
to the northeast of the elevated water storage tank in the staging area that is being used for the race track. It’ll be located against the south boundary of that staging area. The
well lot will be located there and to the east of the Eight Mile Lateral. We had one bid, we had three bidders, three plant holders, and one bid was turned in, and the bid was presented
by Riverside, Inc., from Parma, and they had drilled Well 17 through No. 20 for us, so they’ve got a good record with us, they do good work, and the bid price is pretty much the same
as far as unit prices that we’ve received for Wells 18, 19 and 20 with exception of mobilization. So my recommendation to you this evening would be to approve this award to Riverside.
Do you have any questions on this item?
Bird: None, Gary. Thank you.
2. Request to connect to City services by Opal C. Farrington
1130 East Pine, 1180 East Pine:
Smith: Second item is to connect to City services by Opal Farrington, and she lives out on East Pine. She has two residences there. One’s address is 1130 East Pine, one is addressed
1180 East Pine. 1180 is on the corner of Adkins Lane and East Pine. 1130 is west of that one. There’s a little map that was attached to your handout. The existing house that’s shown
on that survey is 1130 East Pine. Like I said, 1180 is on the – to the right of that, and that parcel that’s labeled not a part – she apparently has received approval from Ada County
because this is in the County. It’s not in the City limits. For a one-time split for her granddaughter to live there, and she’s proposing to bring a modular home in there, set it up
on what’s labeled as Parcel No. 1 which is 1.00 acres, and that’s what she’s split off of the original parcel. She’s requesting that all three of these parcels be allowed to connect
to the sewer. The sewer line is on the south side of east pine which is at the bottom of that drawing, and it’s fairly deep. Now, there’s also a fiberoptic cable that runs along side
of it to the north of the sewer line which they will have to cross to get the service connected. There was one service that was installed while the sewer line was being constructed
on Pine, and that was installed to the west edge of 1130 East Pine. A service was not installed to 1180. 1180 actually takes access off of Adkins Street, but apparently it’s addressed
off of Pine. I think that Planning and Zoning had some concerns about this, but I’m not sure what they are.
Bird: Planning and Zoning doesn’t have anything?
Smith: Brad doesn’t know what the concerns were. It was related to me by Bruce Freckleton that Shari had some concerns about it, about the splitting of the parcel, and beyond that
I don’t know. If this was approved by the Council, I would recommend that it be approved under the conditions that the property owners enter into an agreement to annex, and they are
contiguous to City limits on the west side. That’s Danbury Fair Subdivision to the west side of Parcel No. 1, so they are contiguous to City limits.
Bird: Council, have any questions?
Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. President, I had a question. Is this an emergency situation that they need to hook up to this right away?
Smith: It wasn’t – Councilman Anderson, it wasn’t expressed to me that it was an emergency. Apparently Mrs. Farrington is trying to get her granddaughter located on the property to
help her in her daily needs for living.
Anderson: So would you think that it would be prudent to ask for her to submit for the annexation prior to approving this, then?
Smith: I think that we could probably do it, handle it the same way, or it could be handled in the same manner that the Randy Ware request for connection was
handled on Linder Road. He was required to file application for annexation at the same time that – concurrently with the approval.
Anderson: I guess the only thing I still have questions and concerns about that is what if they fail to do what we ask them to do on their part. What’s our alternative at that point?
They’re already hooked to our sewer. I guess that would be a question more for legal counsel.
Smith: We have in the past where we’ve had problems with complying with City Ordinances or requirements, we have dug up their sewer line and plugged it.
Anderson: I guess that’s an expense after the fact that if we put a little thought into it, we wouldn’t have to go to.
Smith: And if they don’t need this – if their timing is such that they don’t need this right away, and I don’t know what the timing is like, they could certainly file like you’re suggesting.
They could file that application right away, and within the period of three months, the annexation would be effective.
Anderson: Okay.
Bird: Any other questions, Council? Okay. Thanks, Gary.
3. Emergency Hook-up to City Services by Charles Cahoon
1875 N. Locust Grove:
Smith: The next Item, Item No. 3, is – remove that from the agenda. That City sewer is not available to that address. So they are in the County. They will be replacing their septic
tank drain field system.
Anderson: That’s the Locust Grove one?
Smith: Yes, sir. Correct.
Anderson: What happened to the other one that was in our initial packet for the Bledsoe’s?
Smith: It’s still there. It’s still there. I think it’s a regular agenda item.
Bird: It’s Item No. 16 on our regular agenda.
Discussion of water hook-up by Terry Scofield for Summer’s
Funeral Home at Eagle and Ustick:
Smith: The last item I have on my Department Reports is a discussion of water hook-up request by Summer’s Funeral Home proposed project on Ustick Road. Terry Scofield is here tonight.
He’s the architect on the project representing the
owner, and Terry has prepared a letter kind of outlining some of the history on this project. I have also prepared a map, and Terry has also prepared a drawing showing the relationship
of this project with existing city waterline. Mr. President, do you want me to pass this information out now for you to look at?
Bird: Council, do you want it now or do you want to wait until we take it up – move on it at the end?
Smith: Just so you can see what the project looks like. Right now, I think –
Bird: We’d like it now, Gary.
Smith: Okay. We’re flying a little bit blind as far as what this actually entails. It’s kind of a late item that surfaced. Terry and I were talking about it Friday. In probably
mid-year of 1999, Summer’s Funeral Home submitted to Ada County for application to build a facility at 3629 East Ustick. That’s shown on the drawing, cross-hatched area there right
underneath Ustick Road name. One of the items that has surfaced and is causing some problem is fire flow, fire protection. Presently, the city water system is 4700 feet west of this
site at the southeast corner of Summerfield Subdivision. United Water of Idaho has a line approximately ¼ of a mile east of this site in Ustick Road. I guess the issue is the impact
boundary. As you can see on the drawing, you can see where the City of Meridian’s impact boundary is located. Unfortunately, it splits Ustick Road, and the area just north of this
project site is City of Boise impact area. This project site is in the City of Meridian impact boundary. There’s the problem with the water service. I don’t know what the abilities
are of United Water to extend the facilities on into our impact boundary. We’ve experienced some of their desires to do that up on Chinden, but there they were on the north side of
Chinden and serving property to the north, and it was a request by the property owners themselves (inaudible) Chinden and our impact boundary for service, and they were allowed to get
a temporary service off of United Water. Those two sites. The other part of this that creates more interest, I guess, for the City of Meridian, is the recent interest in developing
at the intersection of Eagle and Ustick. The northwest corner that Winston Moore has and is interested in developing, southeast corner is I understand optioned by Hawkins Smith, and
they are interested in developing. The northeast corner is owned by the Cavins family. It’s 40 acres, and they have been interested in developing. Extending water from where it is
in the City of Meridian out to Summers Funeral Home site would not just benefit Summers Funeral Home. It would benefit those other properties at that intersection. One of the things
that we had to look at, obviously, was the cost to do this. The project was not part of our budget for this year. It wasn’t the budgeted project line item for waterline extensions.
However, we do have some money left over from that water line extension project that could be used for this project. We also have some money that was budgeted for rehabbing Well No.
8 which will not be done. So the combination of those two monies is about $220,000, and we’re estimating the cost of this extension at
$260,000. So we’re about $40,000 short at this point. We haven’t done an in-depth research of a budget to see where other monies might be available, but Terry Scofield with the architectural
firm has told me today that he had a revelation last night, I think he woke up and thought of a way to help this project, and that would be to place a temporary water source, a tanker
truck, some other kind of water containing device on the site for temporary fire protection with the approval of the Fire Marshall and the Fire Department. I think he’s had some preliminary
discussions with them about that. Now we’re looking at probably five months before, if we started right away, before we had the water line down there to them. From the other side,
Untied Water of Idaho has indicated they could have water to them within six to eight weeks. It’s a difference in operating between the private enterprise and the public entity where
we have to go through the bidding process, we have to hire an engineering firm, create some plans, get them approved by DEQ. Untied Water has a lot of that – they have the design capability
in the house. They have a contractor on contract that would be just given the job and told to go get it done. That’s why they can react so much faster than we can. Plus, they have
a lot shorter distance to dig and lay pipe. So we’re kind of protecting, to a point, our service area by making an extension like this, but it does have that caveat of temporary fire
protection and whether or not that’s going to be acceptable to the Fire Department.
Anderson: I had a question. Since this line would be going right by where these other developers property and we don’t have enough funds to do it just from your preliminary estimate,
but could there be some partnering with them to maybe help share some of the additional costs?
Smith: Yes, I think there could be. They’ve – Winston Moore and Hawkins Smith folks have indicated willingness to participate in sewer and water extension costs. I don’t see that
being a problem. I think we can fund it all right.
Bird: Gary, can I ask – is that line and the well that that line comes off of going to be sufficient to take care of or would we be maybe smarter to go drill a well a little closer
out there?
Smith: That’s one of the questions that we have to answer yet is whether or not hydraulically we’ve got the capacity to provide the fire flow that the Fire Department is asking for.
I think Skip Voss said something about 2700 gallons per minute requirement. That’s a lot for a dead-end line like this would be. So it’s very possible that we’d be needing to look
at a well site near that intersection also.
Bird: I was just wondering if that wouldn't be a smarter move right now to do because as you bring that down, we’ll be hooking to these other entities at a later date, that’s going
to be drawn – if the end result’s going to be that we’re not going to have enough water for what you’re telling us, I think – what are we paying for wells now to set up and stuff?
Smith: $310,000 drilled and equipped.
Bird: Okay.
Anderson: You’re still going to need some of this pipe even with that.
Smith: Yes. We wouldn’t be able to just put a well out there and provide service to this property. It would still have to be connected back into the system. Correct.
Anderson: Kenny, do we know where that 2700 gallons per minute, is that with a sprinkler system in the building or they could cut that in half if they sprinkled the building?
Bowers: President Bird and City Council members, Councilman Ron Anderson, I’m not sure on that. I didn’t hear. I hadn’t talked to Skip on that part. We have allowed tanker trucks
or tankers to be on location during construction like walls and footings and stuff like that. We have not allowed any tankers to be on location when they try to occupy. We have to
have water at the location when they are ready to occupy. I don’t want to get you guys in the problem or us in the problem of this thing being built and then we don’t have water there
at all and we’re just running off of 10,000 or 5,000 gallon tanker, we might be in a little bit of trouble. I imagine the 2700 gallons is probably – water flow would need to be there
probably without a fire system. I’m just – I don’t know how big the building is going to be, so I don’t know, Ron.
Anderson: Hearing that number, it sounds correct.
Bowers: I would imagine it possibly comes down. I don’t know. I’m sorry I don’t have that information.
Smith: Mr. President, that’s about all the information I have. Terry Scofield is here with the architectural firm if you have any questions of him. I think he also was interested
in passing out some information that he put together. Do you have any other questions that you’d like to ask me on this subject?
deWeerd: Mr. President, I know we’ve been in discussions about these properties that are coming up, and I thought the feeling was that they should be annexed as we serviced them. But
we keep bringing up projects again and saying, well, should we or shouldn’t we? What is – I think we need to take a firm decision on this so that staff has something to work with and
we don’t always have these questions coming up. I know we have a unique situation with our area of impact, and development is happening and they need service, but we still have a plan,
and we still want to grow in the right way. So whatever it is that
we’re going to do, we should just make a firm commitment to whatever it is and then we don’t have to hash this out every time it comes up.
Bird: Okay, Council, your pleasure. Do you want to –
deWeerd: I know we did ask the attorney to look into if we can operate in a certain way that once they’re contiguous to something if they’ll annex in, but do we want to do that or do
we want to grow the way we’re designing to grow?
Bird: I think you’ve got two choices. The County has already approved this as I understand. It is a county property. It is in our impact area. We either, I guess, get the water
out there to it or we let United Water put water to it like we have (inaudible) two locations. Once you start letting – I don’t know. Gary, once they move out there, are we going to
have some problems? I’m afraid we are. I’m afraid we’ve already lost some area.
deWeerd: How big a deal is it if you give up a piece of property to United Water? I guess that’s one thing I don’t understand. If you allow them a temporary hook-up which I understood
is a condition off of Chinden, what is the temporary hook-up and does that mean when we have water up there then we will service it and then that would be abandoned and – I guess I don’t
understand that process either.
Bird: I don’t think any of us do.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, I know there was an agreement, and I think it was a verbal agreement. I don’t think it was anything formal between the Apostolic Church and
City of Meridian when they requested a temporary service a the corner of Meridian and Chinden. I don’t know if there was any kind of agreement even verbally with the landscape or the
nursery to the east of that site. I guess the concern – there’s more concern here because of where this water line is in terms of where our – how our impact boundary jogs around here
than there was at Chinden because of the location of the main that Untied Water had or has and their service area adjacent to their main, to the north side of Chinden. It’s my understanding
that Untied Water, their certificated area that they have approved through PUC, they could just continue to move as long as they’re staying contiguous to that certificated area, they
can continue to expand with little or no fanfare. I guess that’s the concern here is that once they get to Summers Funeral Home, then it’s another 1500 feet to Eagle.
deWeerd: I guess my question would be in our agreement on the area of impact within a reasonable amount of time you are to service these areas, and as Ada County approves these developments
that are not contiguous, that’s with reasonable – that’s not forcing our hand to bring in those services out immediately. What are they doing approving these? I’m sorry. No disregard
to
you, but what are they doing approving these if we don’t have the service out there yet? That’s forcing our hand.
Smith: That’s right. That’s a good question.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, members of the Council, I might just add there is a process for Ada County – has adopted our Comprehensive Plan, and anytime they receive a development
application at Ada County, they’re required to comply with our Comprehensive Plan. In this case, our Comprehensive Plan is a single-family residential. They did submit an application.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application in July of last year and recommended to staff to write a letter of approval to Ada County so the Ada County Commission had
a letter from staff that said this could happen before they approved this. That’s the process as I understand it. The area of Impact agreement says either the Commission or the Council
shall direct staff as to how to comment on the application to the Ada County Commission.
deWeerd: Mr. President, Brad, when the approval is made to build in the area of impact, that is with the regulations that the County says; that they have a well and they have a septic
system. So this would be built with separate – on a different basis?
Hawkins-Clark: I can’t answer other than I know that one of the conditions that they placed on the Conditional Use Permit stated very specifically that they shall comply with City of
Meridian, Rural Fire Department Codes and conditions. Fire Marshall Voss did respond also at this time, and that’s when he stated the fire flow requirement. That’s also when he stated
he would recommend denial of the project. That was in there. We simply were responding on the use issue. That was given to the Commission. Of course, Ada County has the final authority
on those projects that were simply allowed comment during the hearing process.
Bird: Okay. Any other questions? Council, do you want to see the stuff that Mr. Scofield has now or later?
Anderson: Yes.
Bird: Do you want to bring it forward, Mr. Scofield?
Scofield: (inaudible) show up last week and try to find out what to do here. Through all of the (inaudible) told, and the main thing that we’re just finding out is that even though
the project had been reviewed by Meridian and the County of Ada and all of the proper procedures were taken, no place along the line did anyone at Meridian or at the Fire Department
or at the County ever say that the water supply couldn’t be from some other source other than Meridian. So as we’ve proceeded through and talked to each one of these people, we’ve found
that we’ve really only had two other possibilities if the City of Meridian wasn’t
going to bring the water there. It was outlined either we provide storage on site or we obtained service from an alternative supplier. Since the requirement would require us to have
a holding tank or approximately 100 feet in diameter and 20 feet, we didn’t have space on the site, so it really came down that we only had one option to go to a different supplier.
So we went to United Water and asked them if they could supply the need to us and if they were willing to do it, and they said yes and they would. The timing would be like six weeks.
Thinking we had everything under control, we've gone ahead and did the project and had it into the County for plans to be reviewed, and come to the fact that the Fire Department still
hasn’t told us that we could go ahead and build it. So after six months of not knowing what problems still exist, I want to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Hawkins-Clark for the help they’ve
given us in the last week because they’ve been very helpful to put all the pieces back together so that we all know what was happening. The long and short of it is that we would much
prefer to have the water provided by Meridian as well as the sewer, but we were told when we went to the City how long it would take before that service would be available, and back
in about August, they said it would be lucky to be in five years. Well, as you know, things change awful quick. Within the last couple months we’ve found that time limit can change
now because there are so many people that are interested in that corner of Eagle Road. So not knowing that anything was going to happen for five years, we had to go some place else
to get the water to make the project work. Now talking to Mr. Smith, it indicates that Cravens and Hawkins Smith and Winston Moore are all wanting the same time of service and going
through the same thing we went through six or eight months ago. Again, we would much rather just say if you can get the water to us, we’re willing to want to do that. That’s the right
thing for everybody. Then we’re not stepping out of bounds on any impact which we didn’t know we were doing in the first place, and by going (inaudible). So in a nutshell, we’re sitting
here saying we’ve got this thing good, we’ve got a price for the project, we’ve got everything ready to go, and we don’t know what we can do. We’re hoping that you’ll help us out by
telling us to either go to an alternative supplier or that you’re going to bring water and sewer out.
Bird: Council, do you have any questions? I have one. What was the understanding when you went through Ada County and did the bidding process and awarded the contract and stuff of
where the water was to come? Was it to come from Untied Water?
Scofield: That’s what we –
Bird: You were told that it would be coming from United Water? You had no idea until reading your letter that in February when the Fire Marshall of Meridian stated that Meridian could
do it, and at that point you called the Mayor?
Scofield: Yes. That’s when we did the – oh, gosh. We’ve got a chance here.
Bird: But you were under the impression that United Water was going to –
Scofield: Until that point because we were told that it would be five years before you were going to be interested in supplying it.
deWeerd: Mr. President, I have one question. If the water is supplied by Meridian, when you are contiguous to another piece of property that – would you annex in?
Scofield: Certainly. I’m saying that without talking to the owner, but I’m sure that they’re interested in it, too. They want to be good neighbors and part of the community. So it
was a land trade. They had a facility in Eagle, and this land trade gave them an opportunity to get to a closer to the Meridian area and a bigger area for them which they felt was advantageous
to them.
Anderson: Which agency was it that told you that you could have an alternative company provide the water supply?
Scofield: It was the City of Meridian that we went to and asked since it wouldn’t be given (inaudible)
Anderson: So you weren’t actually told that was an option? You concluded that? Okay.
Scofield: But we were told by Public Works that it was not going to be available for five years.
Bird: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Scofield. Thanks for the presentation, Gary. Okay. Mr. Hawkins-Clark, you’ve got the one with Ada County Development Services.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mr. President, members of the Council, did you or did you not receive a copy of the Ada County Development plat for this project?
Bird: We did.
deWeerd: I haven’t seen it. Mr. President, do we want to give a sense of direction on Gary’s last item before we begin on this one? What is the feeling of Council on this?
Bird: This is something I think –
deWeerd: I know a decision can’t be made –
Bird: That we need to get onto when we – in the regular Council meeting; don’t you agree?
Anderson: Well, I guess I agree with Tammy in the sense that I’d have these people sit here for five hours and then tell them that we’re not going to do anything. My personal feeling
is we couldn’t make a decision on this tonight. We need to discuss this more in a strategic planning meeting with Gary and know more ins and outs with Gary and legal counsel there about
the water system and discuss whether we want to pursue that avenue. So I wouldn’t be prepared to make a decision on it tonight.
Bird: IS that what the Council wants to do? Cherie, what’s yours?
McCandless: I’m just wondering how long it would take us to have that planning meeting.
deWeerd: Mr. Chairman, I know next week we meet and we have an hour and-a-half time, a window. We could use the hour to discuss the finance director, but perhaps we could put this
for the remaining 30 minutes to iron out details on it, and we can act on it at the next Council meeting.
Bird: Council, agreeable?
McCandless: I’d be in favor of that.
Bird: Can we do that, Gary? Can you – the 11th, we’ve got that Special Meeting workshop.
Smith: Yes. I’ll – I think we can get the hydraulic analysis done by then to make sure that we’ve got the water flow, and I’ll confirm the flow requirements with the Fire Department
and make sure that if the line is extended we could at least have the flow available that’s required.
Bird: And also, Gary, would you, for the Council’s benefit, I think you did this once for me a year ago. Would you get the state deal regarding – in the water, if they get their water,
United Water could just keep whatever that is – the service area, would you get that in the state and get a copy for these people if you possibly could.
Smith: I could.
Bird: Mr. Scofield, our meeting will be at 5:30 on the 11th, the first hour from 5:30 to 6:30 will be discussion of financial director. From 6:30 to 7:00 we will have your problem
– we’ll work on it. So if you want to be here at 6:30 on the 11th, we’ll certainly be in here. It’s in the Mayor’s conference room. Okay. Is that okay with everybody? Okay. Now,
let’s go on with Mr. Hawkins-Clark and let him go through his so we can get all this done.
B. City Planner – Brad Hawkins-Clark
1. Ada County Development Services:
00-10-PDR, also 00-05-ZC by Steve Smith for Edinburgh Place Subdivision of 138 buildable lots with a rezone from R-T to R-4 of 40.69 acres – north side of McMillan Road approximately
½ mile west of Eagle Road:
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. This is in the same vein as the previous application. This was a development preliminary plat request submitted to Ada County Development Services Department.
It is a plat that is immediately south of the Vienna Woods Subdivision, so it is outside – another example within our area of impact, but beyond our current city limits. They’re proposing
40.69 acre site, they’re proposing 138 single-family dwelling lots, about a 3.4 dwelling-unit-per acre density. We received this about a week ago in our office and would actually prefer
to have more time to review this to make a recommendation in terms of the plat itself. It begs back to a policy question, though, in terms of serviceability, and I didn’t talk with
Gary Smith about commenting on this, but I did receive a correspondence from Gary in the past on Vienna Woods talking about the eight-inch diameter line that’s servicing Vienna Woods.
That pressure line is going to accept flow from the total build out of Vienna Woods, and 20 to 30 more lots. Beyond that whole question of serviceability with the sewer and water for
this plat, they have gone through the proper channels in Ada County. They submitted their application to them. Ada County transferred the application. They are actually having a meeting
this Thursday at the Ada County P & Z commission, and they would like written comment from the City on this.
deWeerd: I came down to get a copy from the Clerk’s office today, and they couldn’t find it. Oh, we just got it? Sorry.
Bird: This is another one of those deals that you get on the last day, and we’re not going to mess with it tonight. I think we’re either going to have to stick to our guns or –
deWeerd: Mr. President, I know staff just requested more time to look at this. I would be in favor of that as well.
Bird: Well, then remember that when it comes up on the agenda.
Nichols: Mr. President, may I ask a question? Brad, will Ada County go ahead and act on this application without the City’s comment?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Nichols, in their cover transmittal memos to the City that if they do not receive a comment, they deem it as no comment; however, the last two applications that I’ve
personally been involved with, they have, the Ada
County Planning and Zoning Commission, has taken a little more firm stand and requested City of Meridian written comment before they act on it. I can’t say that’s going to happen in
this case, but I know that they have been – particularly on these larger impact projects, taking a more firm stand.
Nichols: Mr. President, I would recommend that if you don’t feel like you can make a specific comment, that at least you'd direct staff to detail to the Planning and Zoning Commission
of Ada County that when they receive the plat who still has to look at it within the City departments and request they defer any action until the City’s had adequate time to review
it.
Bird: I agree with you, Mr. Nichols, after reading this last line that says if you do not respond, Ada County shall consider you as having no comments on this application. That response
is by April 5, 2000, on your letterhead. So we’ll take this up at the regular agenda at the last (inaudible) to do that if that’s okay.
C. Parks and Recreation – Tom Kuntz:
Agreement with the Land Group for Generations Plaza Phase II:
Bird: Okay, last Department Head, Mr. Tom Kuntz.
Kuntz: Acting Mayor and Council, you should have in your packets contractual agreement with the Land Group for design work of Phase II Generations Plaza. I’ve got a sheet that I’d
like to pass around that was part of my budget process dated July 12th, and it shows the preliminary cost estimates as well as the design fee of $8500.
Bird: Thank you, Tom.
Kuntz: There will be some design changes in Phase II related to cooperating with Gary Benoit and the construction of the patio off of that building on the east side. I need approval
tonight to move ahead with this contract.
Bird: Any questions?
Anderson: Mr. President, I had one. I read the contract, and it appears that it was already signed by Mayor Corrie on 3/29, and I guess I have a question on that. How can that already
signed prior to Council approval?
Bird: Mr. Anderson, I’ll try to explain this. I’ve looked at some state laws and the state statute. We have been working under a little different pretense. Some of the departments
have been under the pretense that if it’s in the budget, then it’s approved. The State Law which I’ll get the number, I found it in the book and I’ll have Will make a copy for you guys,
very clearly states that any contract will be
approved by the Council and be signed by the Mayor and Clerk. We have some departments that have not had this understanding –
*** End of Side 1 ***
has followed it by the letter. Mr. Kuntz, do you want to explain why that was signed already?
Kuntz: Council President, Councilman Anderson, I was operating under the understanding and this interpretation, I guess, came from our acting attorney, Bill Gigray, in that if the money
has been budgeted and is under $25,000 that the Mayor has the authority to sign those agreements, and that was the way I was operating. I was not aware that I needed to come to Council.
Bird: I understand that, Tom, and nobody is certainly pointing any fingers at anybody. It’s just something that we had, you had some erroneous information. The State statute is very,
very clear. Any contract will be approved by the Council, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk and will be kept in the Clerk’s office, which if I had my way, Council,
is going to be kept to the letter T, but he did have – our previous attorney had told him that if it wasn’t over $25,000 that he didn’t have to do that.
deWeerd: Mr. Chairman, I also didn’t know that as his Council liaison.
Bird: Tammy, it’s no problem there. I didn’t either until somebody told me in the law department told me the exact law to look up in the State statute, and sure enough, that’s what
it is. I’m going to have Will make a copy of it and get it to you. Okay. So we get to approve it. Yes, Mr. Kuntz.
Kuntz: I have one other item. I’m not sure if it made it on here or not.
Bird: That’s okay. Go ahead.
Kuntz: The last item I have is we had a piece of equipment called a skid steer that we put in $7,000 into our budget to lease this year. With the nice weather approaching rapidly,
we have been working on a lease program for that piece of equipment. Found out approximately two weeks ago that if we enter into a lease program, we have to actually assume full debt
responsibility in the year that we lease it. The full debt responsibility for that piece of equipment with the couple of attachments that we want to purchase with it comes to approximately
$33,000. What I’m requesting tonight is authorization to transfer the $7,000 that’s in the lease line item of my budget into capital equipment, and then the other $26,000 option either
to transfer from the Storey Park irrigation system or possibly from the pathway, the Five Mile Creek pathway, because we are going to have a savings in that account, or the possible
other surpluses that you choose to pull
from. I’ve addressed this issue with Council member Bird and deWeerd, and I believe they’re in support.
Bird: Tom, the only question I’ve got is I guess when we get that amount, and I forgot to mention this when you talked to me the other day, we probably want to go get three bids; don’t
you think?
Kuntz: I will need to get that because of the amount I need to actually go through the formal bid process and get three bids.
Bird: I think we can work on that. Anybody else have any questions?
Anderson: I would just make a comment that it’s misleading for me that if you’re going to call it a lease. A lease to me would be something that you make payments on and then you don’t
own it at the end. It would actually be a lease-purchase if you’re going to have to commit for the entire dollar amount, and it should be shown that way in the budget.
Anderson: This isn’t a lease-purchase now. The way he had understood it, we can’t do that. It’s going to be an actual, out-right purchase. That’s how I understand it. Is that not
right, Tom?
Kuntz: That’s correct. But to answer your question, Councilman Anderson, it was a lease-purchase, but there is a specific clause in there that says if money is not reappropriated after
the first year of the lease that the equipment returns from the company, and there are no penalties or that type of thing. The reason we felt like it was reasonable to enter into that
for a one-year period is that we had an out with no costs, and the rental costs on that piece of equipment is $1700 a month, and the lease costs on that piece of equipment is $652 a
month. So there’s about a little over $1,000 savings per month by entering the lease, but you’re correct. It is a lease to own with the one-year clause to get out of it if money is
not reappropriated for that piece of equipment. But what I’m asking for tonight is just to out-right purchase the equipment.
Bird: Any questions? Okay. Council, real fast for agenda before we – Do we have any that we need to take off, Mr. Clerk?
Item M. Development Agreement: AZ 00-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of
Fairview Avenue:
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Council. Item M under the Consent Agenda, the Development Agreement; we did not receive the signed Development Agreement, so I would
ask just to omit that off of the agenda completely so that we don’t have to worry about trying to track it down and table
it until we get an actual signed agreement. Item 5 under the regular agenda, ordinance. This dealt with a misunderstanding of a memo from the attorney’s office to our office that I
didn’t get to look at, and they put this on the agenda. This is still a workshop item that the Council wanted to discuss with the Human Resource Department. So that needs to be omitted
also. Then, Gary Smith mentioned Item 3 under his department reports needs to be omitted.
Bird: Okay. Council, have you got anything that –
Item E. Tabled from March 21, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland
Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
deWeerd: Mr. President, I know we got a new plat for the Overland Mini Storage, so I’d like to pull E off of the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Do you want to move it down to –
deWeerd: One-B.
Bird: You want to move it to 1b? The Ordinance – we have to – would that be okay, Council? Does that (inaudible). It’d have to be 1a, wouldn't it?
deWeerd: One-A. And Mr. President, one other is to remove off of the Consent Agenda, G, and put that along with Item 6 as 6a.
Bird: As which one? Item 6? Item 7. Would that be 7a, then?
deWeerd: Yes.
Bird: Anything else?
Fire Department – Fire Chief Kenny Bowers
1. Contract with the fire truck bid:
Anderson: I think at the end under department reports, too, we need to add Kenny in there on that fire truck.
Bird: Item D on fire truck? Okay. Anything else, Councilman Anderson?
Anderson: I have nothing else.
McCandless: I have nothing.
Bird: Staff, anybody have anything?
Item H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed office building and townhouses in an L-O and R-8 zone of 5 acres by Centers
Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue: Approve
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-002 Request for preliminary plat for proposed Wesley Subdivision for 32 townhouse lots and one office lot of 5 .029 acres by
Centers Construction, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview:
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. President, there was one correction to the Findings for Item I on the Consent Agenda. I don’t know how you would prefer to handle that. The Wesley Subdivision.
There’s simply a correction on one of the items to make it consistent with the Findings for H.
Bird: So what you’re saying is we need to pull H and I both out of the Consent Agenda and move it?
Hawkins-Clark: H is okay as is, I was just pointing out that I, in order to make I consistent with one of the Findings that has to do with open space, if we need to – we’d like to get
that corrected. So if we need to pull that to the regular, then –
Bird: Pull I out?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Bird: Where are we going to move it to? Should we move it to
deWeerd: To five?
Bird: Yeah. Let’s move it to five. We’re going to pull five, so let’s move it to five. Anything else? If not, I’d entertain a motion to close the Pre-Council meeting.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Councilman Anderson moved to close the Pre-Council meeting. Councilwoman McCandless seconded it. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK