HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 01-18MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 18, 2000
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:34 p.m. on January 18, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Bob Corrie, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless.
Others Present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Bill Gigray, Tom Kuntz, Kenny Bowers, Bill Nichols.
Corrie: I’ll open the City Council meeting for January 18, 2000, at 7:34 p.m. At this time, I will ask the City Clerk to give us a roll-call please. Okay. Before we have the election
of City Council officers, President and Vice President, I’d like to welcome everyone here this evening, and a special welcome to two of the Star City Council members here tonight here
to observe and see how we are doing here in Meridian. If I – Gail Glasgow and then Dennis Stegenga – okay.
Election of City Council Officers: President and Vice President:
Corrie: The first Item on the agenda is the election of City Council officers, President and Vice President. At this time, I’ll entertain a motion from the Council for an office of
Council President.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would like to nominate Keith Bird for the position of Council President.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to nominate Keith Bird as Council President. Any other nominations? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion that nominations cease.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Perhaps we should ask him if he would like that position.
Bird: I’ll take it.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: I would make a motion that nominations for Council President close.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that the nominations for Council President close. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. The motion is before the Council is the Council President is Mr. Keith Bird. Should we have a roll-call vote on this to see if we have a unanimous decision, Keith?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Congratulations, Keith. You are now the President of the Meridian City Council. Now we put you to work. Okay. I’ll entertain a motion now for Vice President.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: I’d like to nominate Mr. Ron Anderson.
Bird: I would second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to nominate Ron Anderson as the Vice President. Any other nominations? Hearing none –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the nominations for Vice President of City Council.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to end the motions for Vice President of City Council. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: All ayes, motion’s carried. Motion for the Council is that Ron Anderson be elected Vice President of City Council. Discussion? I have one. You want it?
Anderson: He doesn’t have to do anything, does he?
Corrie: You’ll be surprised what you have to do. Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Ron Anderson, congratulations. You are now the Vice President of the Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You want us to do the assignment at the end of the meeting?
Corrie: You can do it whenever you want.
Bird: I can do it right now if you want.
Corrie: Okay. That’d be fine. It’d be in order.
Bird: Okay. If this is okay with the other Councilmen, the departments – you’re going to get two. We’ve got enough departments we need to have two. Police is Cherie, Fire is Ron,
Parks and Recreation is Tammy, I’ll take Public Works, Planning and Zoning is Tammy, Human Resources is Ron, City Clerk is Cherie, MUBS and Treasurer I’ll take. Is that fair with everybody?
Anybody have any problems with those?
deWeerd: What’s MUBS?
Bird: Municipal Utility Billing System. Any objections to any of those? No?
deWeerd: I have none.
Bird: That’s all, Mayor. Thank you.
deWeerd: Do you need a motion to accept those?
Corrie: No. Hearing there was no objections, we’re all set.
Item A. Approve minutes of January 4, 2000, Special Pre-Council meeting:
Item B. Approve minutes of January 4, 2000, City Council meeting:
Item C. Tabled 12/21/99: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law: Request for conditional use permit for 283-lot planned development for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83
acres from R-T to R-4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC – south ½ of the NW ¼, section 17, T3N, R1E:
Item D. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law: Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4 zoning by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road
and south of Overland
Item E. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law: Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of 326 single-family dwelling lots by Bear Creek,
LLC – east of Stoddard Road and south of Overland:
Item F. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law: request for conditional use permit commercial subdivision mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage
Subdivision By Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
Item G. Proposal by Gary Smith concerning Latecomer Fees:
Item H. Building Inspectors – Contract for Services:
Item I. Streetlight Agreement with Brighton Corporation for Ashford Greens No. 3:
Corrie: Okay. Council, we have the Consent Agenda, Items A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I in front of you. What is the pleasure of the Council on these Items?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda, I would move that we approve Items A, B, C, H and I; that we pull D and E and send back to open a public hearing on 2/15/2000 and we table Item F. Item
G will be coming before us on the 28th in our workshop.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to approve Item A, B and C, H and I; to have Item D and E to be placed – re-opened for a public hearing on February 15, 2000; and Item G will
go onto the workshop on the 28th of this
month, and Mr. Bird, did you want F to be tabled to the next meeting or just tabled for the night?
Bird: Tabled until February 1st, I believe we –
Corrie: To February 1st.
Bird: Uh-huh. I’m sorry.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Council, we have a possibility – if Item No. 7 and 8 would be opened to the public hearing, open those both up as a public hearing to hear the annexation and zoning and
the conditional use permit. Is there anyone that’s here for the Magic View Office Complex have any problem with that? Just a little timing as far as opening it up together. Just open
them together. And Item No. 9 and 10, the same thing; open them both up for public hearing at the same time. They’ll be handled differently. Council, does that meet with your approval?
McCandless: Yes.
Bird: Yes.
Item 1. Reconsideration of Police Grant (hiring two officers):
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 1 on our Regular Agenda is reconsideration of the police grant, hiring two officers. Chief Gordon.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Council members, what I’ve handed out was a reproduction of what I handed out the last time I brought this issue before you. One exception is on the front there.
The closing date at that time was December 13th. I have been able to obtain an extension to January 27th on this grant. Here again, I bring this back because I think it’s extremely
important because of the growth of the City that we accept this grant and put these two officers on the streets as soon as we can get them out there. The costs to the citizens of Meridian
is half of what it’s going to be over a three-year period, and even if we don’t use them or you don’t think we need them this year, if we hire them next year, we can’t use this grant.
This grant is a continuing grant. We’ve already hired eight officers on the grant. I don’t know how long they’re going to continue funding it. It was just re-funded again for next
year, so I can re-apply at that time for more officers, manpower. The need is there. I’ve given you in the facts sheet, some stats. I was just sitting over here waiting for my return
in the front here, and just an example of what has happened since we started keeping statistics, on Page 7 of
8, 1992 we responded or had calls for service 16,416 with 10 police officers which is 1641 calls for service per officer per year. In 1999, the calls for service is 79,924. We responded
to 1949 calls per officer per year. That’s an increase of 300 calls per officer. The crime rate stays low because of the work of the people that we have on the streets. They’re responding
to more calls now than they did in 1992. I don’t look for that to go down. The stats on the previous page show an estimated population of – the year 2000 I think it was estimated we
were going to be at 28,000 population. The signs outside of town say 36,000, and they’re short. This trend is not going to stop. The growth, and I know all of you have seen that growth,
just continues to go. It’s going in all directions. I stress, and I can’t stress enough, the seriousness of the situation, and I feel that the longer we wait, the farther behind we’re
going to get, and the harder it’s going to get to get back up to a level playing field. The officer ratio, I’ve given you several different estimations for different publications.
They show a population ratios presently, we’re drifting on Page 4, we stayed low but evenly low up until ’98, and then we started separating. We’re going to get lower and lower as the
population continues to increase. The cost. It’s 50 percent – it’s 50 percent of an officer for a three-year period. That starts out 75 percent of wages and benefits. The second
year is 50 percent of wages and benefits. The final year is 25 percent of wages and benefits. That totals $134,372 that we’re going to be able to save by taking advantage of the officers
on this grant. Here again, I can’t stress the seriousness of it. If we do not accept this grant, we will be removed from this program, and this particular program is the one dealing
with officers. Here again, I have no idea how long it’s going to continue. We’ve been on this program for the last four years, five years. This year, again, we were the only department
in the state of Idaho to receive this grant, and, here again, it’s because of our growth. They see the growth. The Y2K, they had Boise on national television touting the fastest growing
community in the United States. Well, we’re not that far away from Boise. What happens in Boise, we’re going to have to tolerate also. Once again, I would ask that you reconsider
this program and hopefully accept it. I would stand for questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Bill, you stated earlier in your presentation that you could apply for this grant again next year; is that – if we don’t use it, you can’t apply for it?
Gordon: That’s correct. It’s a continuing program, and the COPS program, I think five years ago, we had to give them an estimation of what we were going to need each year in the future
and then we had to re-apply for each one. The program ended last year, but it was re-funded again, and that’s why I picked up these two officers here. I just received word that it’s
been re-funded again for next year for the year 2000. I can re-apply as long as we take this grant here because we’re still in the program. The departments in Idaho that did not receive
this grant this year are still in the program. If we refuse the grant, we’ll be removed from the program.
Anderson: I thought in our earlier meeting back in June that you had indicated to us that there would be no penalty, that when you wanted to apply for this grant, and we told you to
go ahead and do that, that you could apply for it and that if we ended up not using it, then we wouldn’t be penalized. I thought you had told us that we wouldn’t be.
Gordon: I don’t recall that. My recollection was – my understanding was that if we did not accept this grant, we would not be allowed to apply for any federal grant within a three-year
period. Then I found out that this only pertains to this particular grant. If we don’t accept this, we’re removed from that COPS program. There are other grants.
Anderson: There are some other grants that would help with manpower?
Gordon: No, sir. Not to my knowledge. That doesn’t mean that they’re not out there. Most of the grants right now are equipment grants. We just got another $3,000 on an equipment
grant. We’ll get that next week.
Anderson: You came to the City in, what, ’89?
Gordon: Yes, sir.
Anderson: And how many officers did we have then?
Gordon: That was 10.
Anderson: And how many do we have now?
Gordon: Forty-one.
Anderson: Was that total personnel or –
Gordon: That’s sworn officers. We have ten civilian staff.
Anderson: So we have 51 employees?
Gordon: Yes, sir.
Anderson: How many total employees did we have when you came here?
Gordon: Eleven counting me.
Anderson: Is the WRICOPS assessment or study, has that been completed yet?
Gordon: No, sir. It is not. I’ve called and they’ve assured me that it’ll be done at the end of January. I’ve asked Mike Baccar (sic) with the Department of Law Enforcement, Post
Academy, to call. He did and he was also assured that it’ll be done the end of January. We were promised the end of December. I realize that. We were promised the end of November
and then the end of December, and now it’s the end of January.
Anderson: Out of the 51 employees, how many of them are patrol officers?
Gordon: Twenty-eight.
Anderson: Would these additional two employees, would they then make 30 on the street or would there be two that get re-assigned or promoted?
Gordon: No. The plan is they would go onto the street patrol answering calls where the need is right now.
Anderson: And do we have enough equipment, cars and stuff like that, to handle the additional personnel?
Gordon: We don’t have the equipment, and to handle the officers, we have right now, but we’ll make do. We’re running cars 26, 27 hours by doubling some of the shifts up. Friday and
Saturday nights are our busiest shifts. The need for the personnel would far exceed the need for the equipment right now. We’re short on equipment, also, but I’m looking at another
grant for that.
Anderson: What kind of items are included in equipment?
Gordon: Cars and just the equipment needed for each particular police officer, paperwork, tapes, tape recorders, staff to type the reports, files, the ratio of staff personnel or officer
personnel, civilian personnel is also a ratio for the sworn officers. I haven’t even gone into that area yet. We’re extremely low in that area also. There aren’t any grants for that.
Anderson: You had indicated to us in the past that you’re kind of bursting at the seams down there in your present facility and, in fact, we’ve added a portable building next to the
Police Station, and we’re in the process of trying to purchase some land for a new building. Will these two additional officers compound that problem even more? I mean, do we have
more people taking up that space down there?
Gordon: Yes, sir, it does. But if we don’t hire personnel that’s needed on the street because we don’t have the space and the building, then when we get the new building, we’re going
to have a lot of space and no officers. The workload will be such at that time that they won’t be able to enjoy the new building, and
they’ll be out on the road. Not meaning to be funny, but I can take two officers and keep them on the street if we don’t have room for them in the building easier than I can take the
calls. We’re already starting to back up calls. There for a long time we were able to stay on top of all of our calls. That is changing. We recently had to restructure our call-out
– our calls for service by taking priorities. Calls that we were taking before we’re no longer taking because we don’t have the manpower. One of them was private property accidents,
the other one is bad checks under $500. We used to take those. We no longer take them because we don’t have the personnel. This happens in – we’re not the only one’s that have done
this. Boise’s had to decide what calls they’re going to take for service and which ones they just don’t have the manpower to take. It comes with growth, and it’s just a fact of life.
I grudgingly hang onto as much service as we can provide because I still think we’re still a small town, and I think we should provide that service, but we did give it up recently in
those two areas.
Anderson: My last question is, is there a set number of patrol officers that the department forecasts or determines that they need? I mean, the Council’s intent could be to hire two
new individuals to go on patrol, but is there anything that keeps them there? If you decide that you wanted to reassign eight of these people and put them in detectives or school resource
officers, I mean, what keeps X-number of officers on the street? Is that strictly a management decision?
Gordon: Yes, sir. With the increase in the school programs, the schools themselves, we’re putting a new elementary school over here on Eagle, the school resource program, before we
really got into that, the total crime for one year was 80 percent juvenile, 20 percent adult crimes. We got very active on our school resource program, and I took a patrol officer,
put him into a school, each school has got a school resource officer at this time, we’ve lowered that crime rate back where it should be. Thirty percent of our crime now is juvenile
related, and seventy percent is adult rated. Not that we’ve had the increase in the adult, but we’ve lowered the juvenile crime which automatically raises the adult crimes. There’s
no more crimes, but the ratios have dropped. The PAL program, I have an officer that’s assigned to the PAL program which is a youth activity program which is designed to be proactive
and deal with kids at a level prior to them growing up and becoming criminals. The other programs that we’re looking at right now is the Boys’ and Girls’ Club. To do exactly the same
thing that would require an officer. By using officers on other programs, I get away from that hook-them-and-book-them attitude, and cops just take people to jails because there’s no
more room in the jails. We look at other areas to eliminate crime. If we can catch them at a younger age, it’s – statistics have proven that we don’t end up with adult criminals.
So by utilization of manpower, when you say patrol, we gauge the calls for service in the patrol area versus the proactive portion of law enforcement. I can tell you how many crimes
there are, but I can’t tell you how many crimes we prevent by having school resource officers. We have neighborhood watch programs. I can’t tell you how many that deters. The
programs themselves are crime prevention, and you can’t put a number on those. As the population grows, the actual numbers of crimes also grows. Without these programs, I would say
the numbers that I just gave you would probably be about double.
Anderson: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Chief, if we did not add anymore new officers, we would find ourselves in a reactive position rather than in a proactive; would we not?
Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman McCandless, that’s correct. As the population grows, I would be forced into strictly a reactive mode. We would have to respond to the calls for service
faster than what we’re already doing.
McCandless: Do you think that the crime rate that’s raising all the time in Canyon County and the problems that they’re having in Boise are going to stop at our borders as we continue
to grow?
Gordon: They haven’t so far. They’re all around us. Our officers are dealing with the same people that Boise's dealing with; although I think they live in Meridian and go somewhere
else to cause all the problems, but they’re still here.
McCandless: So we need to be – at least have a proactive attitude where our city is concerned and our safety, wouldn’t you say?
Gordon: I can give you and the taxpayers more for their money by being proactive, yes. If we’re reactive, then we’re taking people to jail and that increases taxes because you’re going
to need jails to keep them.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, I just have a couple comments and questions. I did a little bit of background on why it didn’t pass last month, and I do understand that there is a no-hire policy
in the City and that the City Council really needs to stand by that policy. In adding personnel, it – we have growth throughout the whole city. All of our departments are experiencing
it; however, I do believe that our safety and how safe our public feels should be a priority. I know that you mentioned youth programs. Can one of these positions be dedicated to your
explorers, PAL and the possibility of a Boys’ and Girls’ Club if you were to get these positions?
Gordon: One full-time position?
deWeerd: Yes.
Gordon: As you know now, those programs are split up. I personally am handling the explorer program. Officer Ellis is handling the other programs, and Officer Chopko is handling the
PAL program. I would think if we put it on one particular officer, we wouldn’t get the quality that we’re getting right now. Here again, you’d be taking a police officer and all he
would do would be social work. Police officers are of a nature where they still need a little bit of police work (inaudible). I get more work out of them that way.
deWeerd: But there are a lot of possibilities in expanding PAL into non-traditional, non-athletic events. I know there’s been some concern that the police haven’t always been able
to be on-hand and be visible. Really, that is the advantage of PAL is really giving them the exposure to the police and giving them a positive role model and positive experience. So
would there be more time that could be dedicated to those activities?
Gordon: I can’t answer that one. I can tell you that would be one of the goals would be to get more time in some of the programs that we already have. We have stopped accepting or
starting any new programs with the exception of last Friday which was kind of a surprise to me on the Boys’ and Girls’ Club activity, but we have not accepted any new programs. Here
again, the safety of the Meridian citizens would come first, and then what’s left would go into the programs. I can’t answer that positively yes. If we were looking at one person full-time,
I think I would have to restructure our hiring program, and I would advertise for somebody non-commissioned officer, say, a civilian position who would be schooled in that area dealing
strictly with youth recreation and activities. I think we could do far better that way.
deWeerd: And would these positions be dedicated to the community policing philosophy?
Gordon: Definitely. The Department is committed to that.
deWeerd: When would they need to be hired, and what would be the effective date of this grant?
Gordon: The effective date would be as soon as I could get them hired. They didn’t give me a drop-dead date on the actual drawing of the money, just the signed documents stating that
we were going to utilize the grant. We have fliers out right now to establish an eligibility list; that closes the end of January, we could be testing the middle of February and hiring
probably the middle of March by the time we finished all of our background checks.
deWeerd: So half way into your budget year?
Gordon: Yes.
deWeerd: Then would it be good for a three-year period, so you’re going – okay.
Gordon: Yes. We don’t lose the grant time. It’s a total three-year grant. It would just extend it out.
deWeerd: Can you go for one rather than both and still qualify for future grants?
Gordon: I don’t know. We didn’t put in for one. I have no idea.
deWeerd: I know this is a question that I asked last month.
Gordon: I don’t recall if you did, and I didn’t get you the information, then I’m at fault there. I don’t recall that.
deWeerd: Do you have in your budget the training costs for these two positions?
Gordon: The first year, the six months, no. They would be state-certified officers so they wouldn’t have to go to the Police Academy, and it’s free anyway. But, no, I don’t.
deWeerd: So would you be coming in and asking for additional monies, or do you have the flexibility in your budget to accommodate that?
Gordon: The money that I would need would be the 25 percent match on wages and benefits which totals $22,000 – a little over $22,000. The other money would just be taken from within
my budget, and, no, there isn’t any extras, but there is flexible areas. We would do without some areas.
deWeerd: Okay. I have no further questions.
Corrie: Anyone else? Mr. Bird?
Bird: No sense in repeating myself.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: The community policing program would not only benefit the adult citizens of Meridian but would also benefit the kids of Meridian; am I correct?
Gordon: That’s correct.
McCandless: You’d have the officers out on the streets more, and they would interact with the kids as well as other people?
Gordon: That is correct.
McCandless: Okay. No further questions.
Corrie: Hearing no further questions, I will entertain a motion as far as the reconsideration of the police grant as presented.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we reconsider the grant to hire two new police officers.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded that we reconsider the – doing the police grant for the two new officers. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just a few comments. Can’t argue with Bill. He did a very good job of articulating with the needs of the Police Department. I would like to commend the Meridian Police
Department. I think you guys are well-respected in the community and do a great job. The reality of the situation on this is this, though. The fiscal responsibility part of this falls
on the City Council, and as Councilman deWeerd testified, it’s just not the Police Department that is under pressure to keep up with the growth. It’s Parks, it’s Fire, it’s everybody
in the City. Looking at our budget this year, between the Police and the Fire Departments alone, 72 percent of the City’s budget is going to those which is a fairly large investment
that I think the City’s putting forward towards public safety in this community. The reality is we took almost two million dollars out of our fund balance to help fund some infrastructure
for the police and for the fire, and if we get too far out of balance where manpower costs, labor costs are on-going costs once we hire these people, then that cost is there every year.
We have a tremendous need to expand facilities from police stations to fire stations to park facilities. If we spend all of our resources on manpower and on labor costs, then we simply
would not be able to build the infrastructure to house those people. It’s going to take a balancing of the resources to be able to do this. We’ve already run into some sizeable increases
in what we’re looking in land costs and some associated infrastructure with that, and I’m sure that we’re not done with all of those costs. We have not yet seen the results of the WRICOPS
study which I was very
interested in and would like to see their assessment on the police department and what some of their recommendations would be. I think we’re four months into this budget year. To be
honest with you, there is no fluff in the budget. I don’t know where the extra money would come from to fund these two extra positions even at 25 percent funding, plus the additional
costs for vehicles and equipment as you related to us. I guess having made those comments, I guess caution the Council that we have a fiscal responsibility also to our constituents
out there, and I think that the reality is I think we have a great police department and Meridian is really struggling with growth right now. We would love to be able to add manpower,
we’d love to be able to add it in all departments, but we have to balance that with what we can afford to do.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: I can understand where Councilman Anderson is coming from, however, I think safety has to come above all else, and I don’t think we’re setting a precedence by accepting these
grants. I was under the understanding that we do have flexibility in our budget to accept this grant. If not, I’d like to know different.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If he has any flexibilities within his own budget that he’s got, we do not have any flexibility within the overall city one. Like Ron said, we’ve taken two million dollars out
of our fund to fund some capital improvements so that we could give the raises and the equipment on the deal. I, too, believe that we’ve got a very fine police force. We had agreed
last summer that we would wait and see what WRICOPS said before this was brought before us. Evidently, we didn’t want to wait until WRICOPS got out assessment out. I think people are
going to find out that WRICOPS is going to show that we are very well in safety. We’re not a Garden City, we’re not a Boise. Our 1.1 officer, I think, is fine for this city. Now,
if we were Garden City or something, you’d want more, or Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, wherever. I think our police force does a very fine job. I, too, am like Ron. We – to meet the budget,
get some infrastructure built, we have a very, very tight budget. We would have not made the budget if we hadn’t taken in the two million dollars out of the slush fund. So even if
I felt safe – that we need for safety of citizens – (inaudible) needed more officers, I wouldn’t care whether it was a grant or not. I’d vote for it. I do not believe that we do.
I believe WRICOPS will show that we don’t. That’s all I’ve got to say.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: For Councilman deWeerd, we don’t have time to get into it tonight, but if you wanted to table this motion, I’d be glad to go over the budget numbers with you and show you
where we’re at on those. Maybe we could get some better costs (inaudible) something we can afford.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Is this something that we can do at our workshop?
Bird: We can – he’s got to have it by the 27th according to what he just said.
deWeerd: And when’s our workshop?
Bird: Well, you seem to be able to switch (inaudible).
deWeerd: Our workshop is the 25th.
Bird: It’s the 28th.
Corrie: It’s the 28th. January the 25th. But you’d have to have a special meeting.
Bird: You can’t do it? Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Just a minute. Is Janice here? Would you have her come in?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: In fact, we had to go back into the Police Department and give them more money because we had screwed up on salary as it was, if you remember right, so they – we did have to give
– because we had (inaudible) implementation of a nice program didn’t quite work out like we thought it would, so we had taken that.
Corrie: Janice, they’re talking about – (inaudible) budget is concerned whether we have enough in a contingency fund of what’s left of what we’ve done with the budget while we approved
of. How much – is there any slack here?
Smith: Yes, there is. I don’t have the – right in front of me what was in the paper. We have about 700-some thousand not accounted – not designated. It was just general. When you
did the report, you allocated so much for Police, so
much for Parks, so much for Fire and the rest into general. You went into two million of the Capital Improvement Fund, but we’re not going to be using all that two million into the
Capital Improvement Fund, so there’s like 700-some thousand that we won’t either hit; you wouldn’t have to use all that money from the fund balance. You took the two million out of
the fund balance. The option is not to use all that two million or to allocate it. At the budget workshop, (inaudible) said no new employees, so that really downed everybody’s expenditure
report in the general fund.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had a question for Janice, then. When we were at that workshop, it was down to $25,000. Where has this money magically come from now?
Smith: Well, if you can give me a second, I can just bring it up on the screen. I’ve given a lot of the printouts to the Mayor and I’ve gone over it quite a bit. I think you have
received a summary after the budget was in there, and you can see on your reports, expenditure reports, get a summary of those. There’s – I can print you out one. It’d be the last
one I gave you. I try to let you know it’s there. You guys haven’t allocated it for anything. It’s just floating in the general. I said on the last report, the options are you don’t
go into the fund balance, the two million or are we going to hire more people or Financial Director or police? That’s my plug. Or police?
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: In light of what Janice is telling me, I’d like to see if Bill could talk to them and get a week extension. I’d like to go over the new numbers and figure out just what we
do have.
Gordon: I can always call them.
Bird: See if you can get to the 2nd or the 3rd of February because we have to work on it the first; am I not right? (inaudible)
Corrie: (inaudible) They extended it until the end of January – ask them again to extend it again, I don’t know how the federal government works. You know as well as I do.
Bird: (inaudible) They’ve extended it for two years since I’ve been on the Council.
Corrie: It’s up to you. We have a motion –
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: -- motion before the Council. Okay.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: I guess I have a concern that we delay this. It sounds like we have a sufficient amount of money in the budget to cover it, and if we delay it until February 1st, I’m not
going to be here. I would like to participate in this vote.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion?
Bird: Let’s vote. Question.
Corrie: Okay. The question’s been called for. The motion is do we accept the reconsideration and accept the police grant for the two officers in this request. Let's do a roll-call
vote;
Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; deWeerd, aye; Bird, no.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Corrie: Thank you, Bill.
Gordon: Mayor, Council, thank you.
Item 2. Ordinance No. 853 Solid Waste Collection Services / Franchise:
Corrie: Ordinance No. – excuse me. Agenda No. 2, Ordinance No. 853, solid waste collection services / franchise. City Clerk, if you will read Ordinance No. 853 by title only, please.
ORDINANCE NO. 853: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, RELATING TO THE GRANTING OF A FRANCHISE FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PROVIDING FOR A TITLED DEFINITION SETTING
FORTH THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO GRANT THE FRANCHISE AND LICENSE SETTING A TERM OF GRANTING A FRANCHISE ORDINANCE FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL THROUGH SANITARY SERVICE,
INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION AND SETTING A TERM COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 9, 1999, AND EXTENDING TO AT LEAST SEPTEMBER 30, 2010; PROVIDING FOR A SEVEN-YEAR ADVANCE NOTICE OF TERMINATION; PROVIDING
FOR ACCEPTANCE; PROVIDING FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR GENERAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR INDEMNITY; PROVIDING FOR COMPENSATION, LIABILITY
AND PROPERTY INSURANCE; PROVIDING FOR LIMITATION ON FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR ASSIGNMENT OF FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR DEFAULT BY SSI; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE OF INVALIDITY; PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND; PROVIDING ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT ARE REPEALED AND RESCINDED, AND; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance No. 853 read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Ordinance No.
853.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
*** End of Side 1 ***
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 853, the solid waste collection and services franchise with a suspension of rules.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve Ordinance No. 853 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote.
Roll-call vote: Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mr. Bird, aye; Mrs. deWeerd, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes, motion carried. Ordinance No. 853 has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Berg: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Along with that Franchise Ordinance, we do have a signed agreement, Resolution No. 285, and I think it’d be appropriate to approve that Resolution at this time.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the Resolution No. 285 approving the agreement.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Resolution No. 285 on the franchise agreement.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Resolution No. 285 on the franchise agreement. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: You will probably (inaudible) Mr. Berg (inaudible).
Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R-T TO R-4) by Charles Crane – located at 3610 W. Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is a public hearing request for annexation and zoning, R-T to R-4 by Charles Crane located at 3610 West Ustick Road. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing
and invite staff’s comments first. Thank you.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, as we discussed in Pre-Council, this is a request by the applicant to change some of the original conditions of approval; specifically, they would begin
on Page 3 of the Recommendation to City Council and would extend to Page 4 with Items 1.7 through 1.12. The basic changes needed is to add on Page 3 before Item 1.7 that if the Ada
County Highway District receives a development proposal, the District intends to provide the following requirements, and then go on with those requirements, but not to make them an initial
requirement of annexation. Mr. Crane’s here tonight. If he has anything to add to that, has any other comments. That’s all I had.
Corrie: Any other staff comments? Hearing none, all right., I’ll open the public hearing for the request for annexation and zoning. Is Mr. Crane or representative here this evening?
Crane: Hello, again. My name is Charles Crane. I’m at 3610 West Ustick Road. I’m the applicant. Councilperson deWeerd probably remembers this from July. This was originally a simple
one-time split, and I’ve went through the City Ordinance with the staff, and everything seems to be real simple and straight-forward. This has taken quite a long time, and one of the
points is the road department had a list of future requirements that was mistakenly applied to this rezoning and annexing. There is a letter in the file from Steve Siddoway that tried
to bring this to the attention of the Council on September 20th where it lists the mistake in the record that the road department only required those for a future subdivision if things
have changed; if there was being resubdivided or resubmitted in some future with the sidewalks and other requirements they listed
would only be required at that time. Since then, the director of ACHD also sent a letter to the City Council to restate that fact. So you guys have that. So, basically, I’m just requesting
that those items that were put in by mistake, the sidewalk and easement and other things be taken off the Development Agreement. Just basic, simple annexing and zoning.
Corrie: Okay. Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
Crane: All right. There is one other point. This has created a pretty severe financial hardship because this is being drawn out this long. One of the stipulations is that water and
sewer be connected when I get annexed and rezoned. I was going to ask if that could be postponed – in the letter from Steve Siddoway if we could postpone it until I had a buyer for
the land because of the delay of these hearings, all my finances I had set aside to pay for those things are gone now. I was hoping I could wait until I had a buyer for the land before
I had to hook up to the City water and sewer; if I could have a delay put in the Development Agreement.
Corrie: Mr. Smith.
Smith: Yes, sir.
Corrie: Do you have any comment on that at this point? Other than maybe get some counseling from the attorney on where we should go with this?
Smith: I guess my only comment would be that the Ordinance has a requirement for connection if the property is within 300 feet of sewer or water lines. So, the provisions of that Ordinance
would need to be (inaudible) if that’s your desire. That’s about the only thing I could speak to, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: What he’s saying is it would take a variance from the Ordinance to do that. It’s –
Crane: It’s my understanding that you have the authority.
Corrie: Council can do that.
Gigray: I think that’s a Planning and Zoning Ordinance. Is that in the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance? (inaudible) subject to a variance.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, it is in the Sewer Use and the Water Use Ordinance, yes, sir.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray, could that be possible then, on the variance? (inaudible) land use.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it’s not a matter of which I have reviewed for this meeting because I wasn’t aware this was going to be an issue, but generally speaking,
those ordinances proscribe a certain time period within which they have to hook up, and it isn’t like it’s immediate. I don’t know if it’s a year or whatever it is. As I understand
our variances, they generally apply to Zoning Ordinance criteria and subdivision criteria and aren’t generally applicable to regulations over the water and sewer system. Basically,
the requirement for hookup when hookup is available is to protect the integrity of this system and also usually many systems are started with bonding and whatever and bonding agents
require those kind of conditions be an ordinance to assure that the ability of the system to repay the obligation of the bond, and it could be – it’s not an uncommon thing to be in city
ordinances. There may be a provision in the code. I’m just not aware at this time, for him to apply for some kind of relief. That’d be a matter, I think, that should be dealt with
separately under the terms of that ordinance, not as part of this application.
Corrie: Okay. Is that all right with you?
Crane: Yeah. If the time period is like a year or something, that would be fine. I think somebody at the Council had mentioned 15 days.
Bird: That’s what the ordinance, I think, does say: 15 days from annexation.
Crane: If it’s 15 days, if I could get some kind of relief from that if it’s within your power.
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Smith.
Smith: I’ve made this statement to the Council to you and to the Council before. I’m not out looking for customers for sewer and water. We’ve got lots of them, and there’s more coming.
This particular use certainly wouldn’t impair or impede us in gathering customers. I certainly, personally, wouldn’t have a problem with waiving this requirement. Legally, if that’s
how you need to go about it, that’s another question. In terms of you asking me if I had any concerns about this, I would not.
Corrie: Thank you. We’ll take it up separately from this one – annexation. Anything else? Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else in the public
that would like to issue testimony on Item No. 3? Hearing none, Council, any questions or discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: What would the step be for the applicant then to take, or could – is it a possibility we can make that a condition upon application of a building permit? Can we just build
that into the Development Agreement or does he have to specifically, formally apply for a variance?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman deWeerd, members of the Council, the procedure will be if there is one available, should be proscribed in the ordinance. I just don’t have it in front
of me, and I wouldn’t presuppose at this point to answer that question because I don’t know the answer to it. Certainly, I would think the immediate control over those provisions of
the ordinance would be with the Public Works Department because they are the ones who administer for the most part, the Water and Sewer Ordinances of the City. If there is some available
relief in this instance, I would think that could be handled at least on initial review at a department level. Now, the department could look at it and determine that the terms of the
ordinance are unduly restrictive and provide for hookup in too short of period and could request this office with the approval of the Mayor to prepare an ordinance that would amend that
to extend the amount of time. I know that time in other cities is longer. I know in some areas it’s as much as a year or so. But I don’t think that – I wouldn’t advise this Council
to waive provisions of your ordinance that are mandatory as a condition of a Development Agreement. I don’t think it’d be proper.
Corrie: Any other questions?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: So, Gary, can you meet with the applicant and let him know what the procedure would be, then?
Corrie: Hearing no other discussion, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning.
Bird: We’ve got to close the public hearing.
Corrie: Sorry. You’re absolutely right. I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then I’ll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning for the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Order to be taken up.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning, R-T to R-4, by Charles Crane
located at 3610 West Ustick Road in a favorable comment.
Corrie: Is there a second to that motion?
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the proper ordinance for the annexation and zoning for Item No.
3 from R-T to R-4 by Charles Crane. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just had a comment. I agree with Council. I think we set a dangerous precedent when you do the annexations and just waive your ordinances, and I think the proper procedure
would be to change the ordinance first and not grant a variance in this case. It seems like we’re doing it backwards to me, and we’re setting a precedence, and we’re inviting anybody
else in similar situations to get their property annexed and increase the value, change it to a different zoning ahead of putting up the development costs and stuff like that. So it’s
my feeling that this wouldn’t be the proper way to do this.
Bird: We’re not changing any variance.
Anderson: But you’re approving it without water and sewer hookup.
Bird: No, I’m not. I didn’t say that. My motion does not carry that.
Anderson: Okay.
Bird: I didn’t take any variances in that.
Anderson: All right.
deWeerd: No. The applicant is supposed to work with Gary on the procedure.
Bird: That isn’t in the motion. The motion is cut and dry. It’s as per our ordinance. There’s no variance.
Anderson: Okay.
Corrie: Yeah. The motion is to have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Ordinance drawn up for the annexation and zoning.
Anderson: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Point of – request for clarification. The draft Findings and Conclusions of Law that we prepared for which this matter was re-opened included some Findings of the adoption
of the Recommendation of the Engineering Department and there were certain requests that adopted conditions and recommendations of the Ada County Highway District which were set out
on Page 5 and Page 6 of those proposed Findings. I think, as I understand it, that was the heart of what the complaint of what this applicant was were those conditions, and if I understand
his motion correctly, for re-opening this public hearing was to eliminate those conditions alone, and then he brought up the one additional point about hooking up to the sewer system,
but I think all you need to do, if this is your desire, would be to simply eliminate those Ada County Highway District recommendations and Findings in that I think the import of this
was that they would be able to address that as such time as they would develop this property and that you could just simply direct me to eliminate those conditions from the Findings
and Decision of Order as well as the Development Agreement and then I could proceed to bring those back to you with those eliminated based on this action for your final action and adoption
at the next meeting would be our normal process.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: That’s what the motion was for was for the reason we had re-opened this was to get rid of the Ada County Highway District thing. So my motion was to make a new Findings of Facts
and Conclusions of Law without those in there because that’s the reason we had done it. Does that clear it up?
Gigray: That’s clear.
Bird: That’s what my motion is. There’s no variance or nothing.
deWeerd: That’s what my second was.
Corrie: Good enough. I’m glad we’re on the same page.
Bird: Now we can get going.
Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres from M-1 TO I-L by Albertson’s, Inc. – east of Eagle Road, north of the railroad tracks and south of Settlers
Canal:
Corrie: Item No. 4 is a public hearing. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres from M-1 to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc. east of Eagle Road and north of the railroad
tracks and south of Settler’s Canal. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 4 and invite City Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the existing Albertson’s Sundries facility at the eastern end of Commercial Court off of Eagle Road. In the recommendations to City Council,
I had some suggestions for some changes. On Page 1, Item 6 to complete the sentence: properties located east of Eagle Road at the present easterly terminus (sic) of Commercial Court
in Meridian. Page 3, Item 1.2 just to fix the typographical error on “require.” On Item 1.8, I don’t believe this was brought up at the Planning and Zoning Commission under signage.
I would like the Council to consider adding to that that free-standing signs should be limited to a maximum height of 20 feet as a –
Anderson: That is on 1.8?
Stiles: 1.8 on Page 3. That that be included as a condition of annexation. I think with those changes and with the applicant’s compliance with all ordinances in
effect at the time of issuance of building permit, it is my understanding they would like to discontinue their septic and well system if that exists out there so that they can add onto
the facility. I would recommend that on Page 4, Item 1.11, the requirement for a Development Agreement be deleted.
Corrie: Thank you. Anything else, Shari?
Stiles: That’s all I had.
Corrie: All right. This is a public hearing and it’s open. Hear from the developer, Albertson’s, representative here tonight.
Beckstrom: We’re here, Mr. Mayor. We’re not prepared to comment (inaudible)
Corrie: I can hear you, but sometimes the recorder doesn’t. One of the questions I have in this, the questions and deletions and additions at the Planning and Zoning Director did,
do you have any problems with those?
Beckstrom: No, sir.
Corrie: Your name?
Beckstrom: My name is Brad Beckstrom. I live at 11429 West Colony Street in Boise.
Corrie: Could you please spell your last name, please.
Beckstrom: B-E-C-K-S-T-R-O-M.
Corrie: Anything else you’d like to add?
Beckstrom: No, sir.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else from the audience that would like to participate in the public hearing on Item No. 4? Okay. Any questions of the Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie; I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 4.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 4. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Council, discussion, recommendations? Vote?
Bird: I have no questions.
Anderson: No questions.
Corrie: All right. Then I’ll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning of the 20.05 acres from the M-1 to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would like to make a motion that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for 20.05 acres for Albertson’s, Inc., with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Anderson: Subject to staff comments on Page 1, Item No. 6 and Page 3, 1.2 and 1.8.
Bird: Now I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning of the Albertson’s Inc., Item No. 4 with the corrections and staff comments added to the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Councilman Anderson, you did include the deletion of Item 1.11?
Anderson: Yes. I would like that included in my motion.
Bird: My second does, too.
Corrie: Okay. That’ll be included in the motion. All right. Any other discussion?
Roll-call vote; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mr. Bird, aye; Mrs. deWeerd, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Public Hearing: Request for vacation of 20-foot emergency access of Mirage Meadows Subdivision to a new access located at the end of Oakcrest Drive by Robert Higgins, et al
– Block 1, Lots 16 and 17 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau Meadows east located at the end of Oakcrest Drive:
Corrie: Item No. 5, this is a public hearing request for vacation of 20-foot emergency access by Mirage Meadows Subdivision to a new access located at the end of Oakcrest Drive by Robert
Higgins, et al, Block 1, Lots 16 and 17 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau Meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive. I’ll open the public hearing and
invite staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for an existing emergency access that also serves as a pedestrian walkway between Mirage Meadows and Chateau Meadows north of Fred Meyer. The
complaint has been that there’s been vandalism occurring along that section and the adjacent property owners would like that access to be discontinued. As you can see, there’s this
access here. There’s very little inter-neighborhood access here. What they’ve proposed is that this be used as the access between the neighborhoods. Unfortunately, this is still county
property, and the City does not control development of that piece. I don’t know (inaudible). I would like the Fire Chief, Kenny Bowers, to make some comments on this and set forth
his recommendation.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council, when we first started talking about this, I was quite concerned because I didn’t realize that the City had a piece of property in that yellow
piece right by that arrow. I figured it was all county, and I didn’t know how we were going to do this. But after Shari pulled it up, there is just a little piece of property that
is the road that is the City property there. My biggest concern, also, was the elevation difference between where the arrow is and Oakcrest. We have taken a truck down there in that
area and looked it over. With a little bit of grading, we should be able to get the elevations satisfiable to myself for the fire trucks. We did try to work out to put a gate there
that we could just come up and cut the chain and go through it that way, so that would be okay with us at this time until that piece gets developed. My biggest concern is who is going
to maintain that road back to that one house like in the wintertime? Part of it is asphalt, part of it’s gravel, part of it’s dirt. That was one of my concerns. They are still going
to have to use that as a walkway to get to Fred Meyer so that gate will not be the full length of the road, to my knowledge. And we will have to make sure that there’s no parking so
we can swing that gate open so we’re not – so the gate will not fling back and hit another vehicle and damage it, scratch it. A lot of the people, from what I understand, that visit
this place here, the older house there in the county, they do park at the end of Oakcrest. So we’re going to
have to make sure we get some signs up or something, no parking in that area. Does City Council have any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have a question. More of Shari. So the piece we’re talking about is that little, thin sliver, the yellow piece? Right there?
Stiles: He’s talking about this little yellow –
Bowers: City Council members, Ron Anderson, that piece right there will be part of the road that we have been discussing. The circle, the red circle to the left of that, right there,
that’s the part that they want to close between those four homes right there. I think the next slide has it on it, Shari. Right there. That’s the piece that they want to close between
the four homes. That’s Oakcrest there on the bottom that runs left and right and it runs into Dixie Lane, the old Dixie Lane. Right there.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Chief Bowers, is it called a pedestrian path or is it a road? What is that?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council members, right now there is two big concrete barriers that Ada County or somebody has put there so they cannot drive from Oakcrest to the old Dixie
Lane. Yes, they do that – they use that as a pedestrian walkway for those subdivisions to get to Fred Meyer and to the Chevron Station and to school.
deWeerd: So what is it made up of? Is it pavement?
Bowers: The pavement ends right – are you talking about –
deWeerd: What you will be using as the emergency access.
Bowers: Okay. Right there. That’s partial pavement. Right where the arrow’s at, it starts to dirt and gravel. They will be – if you pull the arrow up just a little bit farther,
right there, they will put a gate that swings right there.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I’m confused what that piece of property has to do with the other one that they’re asking to vacate, then.
Bird: I’m with you.
Bowers: City Council members, Mayor Corrie and Ron Anderson, years ago, this subdivision was developed, and upon the recommendation of City Council that they would put that access road
in the circle into this development because that is the only way into this piece of the subdivision until Oakcrest gets built through. One way in, one way out of this subdivision. Locust
Grove on your left comes in, you go one way in, one way out, and the access to get into this location for emergency vehicles was in that circle. We thought by now that Oakcrest would
be punched through, but I’m not sure what the problem is of purchasing that property.
Anderson: So the place where the arrow is sitting right now is not the access road that you’re talking about?
deWeerd: It is.
Anderson: Where it is?
Bowers: A new access road. The new proposed access road, yeah. The one in the circle is the old access road right there.
Anderson: Okay. So you’re proposing vacating that one and creating a new one.
Bowers: That’s what they are proposing, yes.
Anderson: Okay. Get this straight.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you have our comments of December 3, 1999. Just like to reiterate that the children in this subdivision do use this micropath to go from Oakcrest Drive
to Meadow Wood Street which is right here, and then they get up to Chateau because this is where they have a crossing guard assist them to get across Locust Grove Road; otherwise, these
children are going to be forced to come out to Locust Grove and up here where I don’t believe there are any sidewalks yet. Are there? They indicate there are sidewalks. Of course,
this is all going to be widened. We are also concerned about the lack of interneighborhood connectivity because they really don’t have any real access to the other neighborhoods. That’s
all I had.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Shari, I have in front of me the Recommendation to City Council from P & Z, and I only have two pages to this. Were there not – I believe that P & Z had some additional comments
that should be included in this. Do you –
Stiles: All I have is two pages.
Bird: Yeah. That’s all I have. It stops right there.
deWeerd: Mr. Gigray, do you have additional ones?
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman deWeerd, no.
deWeerd: It seems like an odd place to just stop.
Bird: It’s just a recommendation.
deWeerd: No. I know there was something else with this, but I don’t have the minutes.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, point of information. I might encourage the Council or the Mayor to inquire of staff with regards as to what the actual statement is on the
plat that dedicates the particular item which is before you because it might clarify what kind of a dedication it was. It is my concern that this is a dedication that would be an emergency
access, or it could be considered in some way a road right-of-way. My opinion would be that the City Council could certainly entertain this application for its approval as would be
required, but it would come under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District because they’re the ones that are in charge of roads and streets in this county. It seems a little
unclear to me from the information that I have in my packet as to the very nature of this particular easement for which this application applies. I assume there’s a note on the plat
or something that designates what it is, and maybe I’m just missing it and it’s in here somewhere.
Corrie: Do you have that plat there, Shari? Is there – (inaudible) that he’s asking?
Stiles: It is emergency access.
Corrie: Okay. Council, do you have any other questions of staff at this point? Okay. Since this is a public hearing, I’ll hear from the applicant.
Higgins: Hello. I’m Bob Higgins. I live at 2064 North Applewood Place. In reference to Ada County Highway District, they’ve already stated they have no interest. It was not recommended
by them, and the property that’s involved belongs to the people who – the easement crosses their land. Ada County has no interest in it. The only reason that was there was this subdivision
– may I – does somebody have a laser or can I – Basically, when I –
deWeerd: Sir, you can use that microphone. No. Right here on the stand. And you can take it off the stand if you would like.
Higgins: The reason – my understanding was when this easement was put in, this emergency easement, that’s all it was granted for, fire trucks to get into the subdivision, is because
this subdivision at the time was not developed. And it was crossed out – in reference to paved, it’s gravel right in here, and then starting down from this point becomes pavement all
the way down to Fairview. So from this point here down to here, we’re looking at pavement. The school – in reference to the school problems, in reference to their talking about kids
going through there, it was never considered to be a pedestrian right-of-way, but as of next year, all students in this subdivision here will be going down through this subdivision because
the new school is being built over right here for our subdivision. In reference to the kids walking through that alleyway, basically, they’re getting good sex education because they’re
writing all sorts of foul language, putting obscene pictures on my fence. The liability suit of all four neighbors in this are liable if anybody gets hurt, falls down, we’re liable.
They can come to our insurance company and nail us. I would like to bring up one comment from my neighbor who had been walking through there, we’ve got a scare. Last week, as a matter
of fact. His name is Joe Paswalk.
Paswalk: Council, I’m Joe Paswalk, 2041 North Applewood Place. The problem in there is it’s really dark. My problem with the whole thing is safety of everybody, both subdivisions.
The other night I came through there and the kids were sitting along the fence, couldn’t see them, you know, it was really quite a heartstopper when you’re going around the corner to
walk in there, and you’re just right there in the dark. I’m really concerned that we’re going to have a problem out there to where we’re going to have some residents hurt. That’s kind
of out of control right now. So that’s my biggest concern. The little people that go back and forth in there, that’s really great, but somebody’s going to get run
over on either end, now, because the traffic has gotten more and more out there. So I think that’s my biggest concern in that walkpath out there. Thank you.
Higgins: Last week before we left, I had also a letter here from Richard Stagnaro (sic). He lives on – in our cul-de-sac. He just wanted to be of record that the kids traveling between
both those subdivisions, they’re cutting across – when they come across, they’re shooting through here and cutting right across the lawns here of Joe Paswalk and Richard Stagnaro is
right here. They’ve got a little berm there. The kids will come right across his lawn and jump his berm. So it’s just getting real irritating. I’ve been living there for about six
years, and I finally just can’t take it anymore. It’s just been – this last year has just been the final point where I’ve got to say I can’t afford the risk. I’ve backed up and come
close to hitting kids through there, and on top of it, when I did my research and found out we own the property and we’re liable, if we don’t get it authorized, then I would think that
we’re going to be entitled to close it off manually so the Fire Department could go through it. It’ll stop congestion traffic. So, it is not guaranteed a pedestrian walkway. It’s
only an emergency access. It was only supposed to be temporary at that point. So I’d like to give this letter and make it part of the record if you would, please.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, how long has that been used as an – I know you stated as an emergency pathway, but how long has it been used as a public pathway?
Higgins: I’ve been there since February ’93.
Bird: ’93. And that right-of-way is actually part of your deeded lot?
Higgins: It’s part of my deeded lot. There’s a letter from Ada County saying they have no fee interest in that property.
Bird: Are you talking about the matter from Christy Richardson (sic)?
Higgins: Is she from Ada County Highway District?
Bird: Yeah. Ada County Highway District staff has received and reviewed the application and site plan for the item referenced above.
Higgins: No. There’s a letter that says there is no fee interest in that property.
Bird: It says don’t have any site requirements at this time.
Higgins: It was hand – it was delivered to you. Hold on. I might have a copy of that here.
Bird: That one is from Christy Richardson of ACHD>
Higgins: It was dated December 14th because I got it the day of a meeting.
Bird: Mine is December 1st the one I’ve got here.
Higgins: There’s a letter from Ada County Highway District that’s dated December 14th which they stated they had a no-fee, simple interest in that property.
Corrie: Mr. Higgins, do you have that in your file? It might help us a little bit.
deWeerd: Would it be the one dated November 4th?
Higgins: No. This is just – I got it the day they signed off on it on December 14th when we had that meeting because I just got it that afternoon. They said it was part of this file,
so I didn’t bring it with me. (inaudible) It was part of the record when we were here on the 14th, and Tammy, you were here at that time. I handed it in at that point. You could
check the records. It should be part of your records.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’m not sure the letter from ACHD would have any real relevance whether they’re charging a fee or not. I just –
Higgins: No. What it states is they don’t have an interest in that party. Basically what the letter is saying is that the property involved is owned by the lot – the homeowners –
the property that easement crosses.
Anderson: I understand that. You mentioned that they’re going to build a new grade school off to the east of that; how will the kids from your subdivision access it? Is there a way
to get from Oakcrest on down to that (inaudible) Avenue?
Higgins: Yeah. Right through here there’s a public right-of-way, ten-foot access from the sidewalks here that goes across this lot here to North Dixie Lane. The – if you’ll check
the records, the Planning and Zoning guy that was here before verified that.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just a couple more questions. Robert, P & Z staff themselves recommended keeping that, and Planning and Zoning recommended closing it. P & Z staff recommended possibly opening
that up a little bit. It sounds like you must have six-foot high cedar fence or something on each side of it right now. Has there been any thought by the homeowners to go ahead and
open that up with a chain-link fence or a lower fence so the visibility could be improved to kind of discourage kids from hanging out there?
Higgins: I like my privacy. I don’t like people walking through and seeing what I’m doing in my backyard, plus the lower the fences, we’ve got two people with hot tubs back there.
The liability if we don’t keep high fences, we can get sued. Either that or lose our homeowners. Right now, I’ll be really – I think we’re going to be in a Catch-22 situation for
anybody who gets hurt in there, and our homeowners pays for it and they find out they’re on the hook for that every time somebody gets hurt because my – it’s just like a dog biting.
Your insurance will pay for it once, but if it happens again, they’ll cancel your homeowners. When they put that in there, the City Council before, I think they forgot about the liability
factor of the –
*** End of Side 2 ***
bicycles, making rumps and jumping in there. These – the Balls who live in the – right here on this (inaudible) Meadowwood, she’s not here tonight, but she’s come close to – their driveway’s
right next to the fence and backing out, kids come around through there and she comes close to hitting a kid of their bicycles. So it’s just a matter of – it’s not – if it’s going to
happen, it's just a matter of when it’s going to happen. The vandalism that I’ve had on my fence, I mean, I was going to have to report it to insurance, and I’m not looking forward
to that, because when it happens, they’re going to say we’ll pay for it once, but come next time, who’s going to pay for it? I have to pay for it? I don’t think that’s right.
Corrie: Anything else?
Higgins: No, that’s it for me.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Okay. Questions of the Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: One more question for Mr. Gigray, a legal question. The homeowners had talked about their liability. Educate me a little bit. The pathways now that are being created in
newer subdivisions, are those common areas? Is that why there’s no liability with those homeowners and this is set up differently because this was an emergency access at the time, or
do the current ones that we require or ask for, do they still have the same liability?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think the issue of liability would be fact-driven, and that would be what is actually happening out there. If these property owners are
in possession and maintaining possession of the property and are aware of or have conditions there knowing it’s public use, it would be endangerment to people using it, I would say they
probably incur some liability. If this is, in fact, a dedicated right-of-way, which it sounds to me like it is, to me, the ownership interest of that right-of-way would be held by the
Ada County Highway District. What these property owners, if they’ve got some concerns about liability or, in fact, damage to their property by the public use of that, that they need
to confer with Ada County Highway District about closing it off. One of the things that I think is going to be difficult for you to make a decision about this application, and I might
urge that you might consider continuing this hearing to get more information is I’d like to see what the plat says and the language of the dedication. It sounds to me like the evidence
produced so far would indicate that there’s been public use of this for a period of greater than five years which, I think, creates public right-of-way issues that get outside of the
City’s jurisdiction at this point other than your jurisdiction to consent any vacation of that right-of-way by the Highway District. If it’s like we maintain pathways within our parks
systems, and that’s into the jurisdiction of the City, and it’s the City’s responsibility and not the private property owner.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 5. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Public hearing is closed. Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: How do we obtain the information on if it’s a dedicated right-of-way and it’s not?
Corrie: Shari, Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I’m looking at a reduced copy of the plat from Mirage Meadows which was recorded in 1990. A reduced copy of the plat of Chateau Meadows East No.
1 which was recorded in 1990. Both plats show this as a 20-foot wide emergency access easement. It’s not a dedicated public right-of-way by the plat. The plat from Mirage Meadows
shows it as a 20-foot emergency access easement, fenced both sides with 20-foot of asphalt pavement. So it was dedicated as an easement on the plat. An easement only.
deWeerd: So it’s not a right-of-way.
Smith: It’s not dedicated as a right-of-way if there’s something about use of the property over a period of time, as Mr. Gigray commented that it turns it into a public right-of-way,
I don’t know. But the plat did not dedicate it as a public right-of-way. It showed it as an easement across the property.
deWeerd: And when was that platted?
Smith: 1990.
Corrie: So, Mr. Gigray, then we could vacate that property; correct? Or not? You hesitated a bit.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think first of all you’ve closed the public hearing. If we’re going to get additional information, I would just think procedurally you
should re-open the public hearing to receive that. I’d certainly be more than happy to look at that, but quite frankly, it seems to me that there’s a dedication for emergency access
or for access, we’re getting into issues for right-of-way. You can have access of ingress and egress that are easements to properties which are right-of-way and if the dedication says
it’s dedication to the public, then I think we need to examine that to determine what the rights are there in terms of the potential interest of the Ada County Highway District. Now,
we have in the past granted vacations and then put a notice in that order of vacation that the applicant is advised that they may wish to seek the approval of the Ada County Highway
District as kind of a hedge of representing whether or not the City has that ultimate authority, and then they would proceed to the Ada County Highway District. If they decline that
they have any interest in it, they could get a ruling from the Commission and that might resolve the issue. That’s just an issue that comes to my mind. The City would have to approve
it if the Ada County Highway District were going to vacate it, it would have to have the
City’s approval because it’s in the City. I mean, it wouldn’t be a waste of time to go through this with – it makes a little difference on how I write up an order if you were going
to grant this. It’s one of my concerns.
Corrie: So that I am hearing what I think I’m hearing, you’re asking that we open the public hearing back up and table it – continue the public hearing to the next meeting until we
get information; is that correct?
Gigray: Well, either that or at least receive the information that the Public Works Director provided so we can get that plat information into the record. I don’t have it in my packet.
It may be there and I just don’t know it.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we re-open the public hearing for Mirage Meadows Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to re-open the public hearing on Item No. 5. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Re-open the hearing. If you will please enter that testimony on the record.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. The two plats involved in this request are Chateau Meadows East No. 1. It was created in 1990. Mirage Meadows Subdivision also created
in 1990. Both of these are recorded subdivisions at Ada County Recorders Office. The easement under question is noted on the plat as Chateau Meadows East No. 1 as a twenty-foot emergency
access easement, fenced both sides with 20 feet of AC pavement. The easement description on Mirage Meadows Subdivision is a 20-foot emergency access easement, fenced both sides with
20 feet of AC pavement. These are shown as easements, ten feet each side of the property line as platted. I think that was all I related to you earlier.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Gigray, is that what we needed?
Gigray: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: All right. Any other discussion of the public hearing?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Question for Mr. Gigray, then. Does that testimony change any of your thoughts about that there’s still some question about whether this would be a dedicated right-of-way
or not?
Gigray: My opinion is what I’ve heard that it is. That’s my opinion. At the same time, even if it is, the Council is required to give its approval, although, I think the proper procedure
in those instances is to make application to ACHD, they run it through, and then you run your approval to them. But we’ve done it the other way. It just makes a difference in the language
I do in the Order if you grant this. Now, I believe this applicant may want to address what’s been said here.
Higgins: Yeah. I would.
Gigray: That’s up to you, Mr. Mayor. I’m sorry.
Corrie: That’d be fine if you give your name, please, again.
Higgins: My name’s Robert Higgins, I’m at 2064 North Applewood Place. I went to Ada County Highway District. They – that’s the reason I got that letter that’s in here, and I can get
you another copy of that letter that says they have a no-fee interest, simple interest in that property. I’ve got a license application that’s been approved to put the gate up. Ada
County Highway District, the letter that’s part of your file, you should have it, they have no interest in it. They’ve – was not a requirement for them when they put that subdivision,
when this subdivision went in. So what they told me is I have to go before City Council. Now you’re telling me to go back to Ada County Highway District again so they can provide you
another letter that says they have no interest. I’m – I hate to say this, but bureaucracy here is kind of driving me wild here because I’m trying to get things resolved, and Ada County
Highway District – it’s not a requirement. It was never a requirement for that easement to be put in. The City of Meridian put it in. The plat I’ve got here, all it says is it’s an
emergency access only. So I’m trying to jump through the hoops here and make everybody happy, but I can’t – I wish I would have kept – I went through my stuff to get rid of stuff which
I didn’t think I needed, and that letter was part of it because I had a copy of it. Let’s see. That’s – you’ve got the copy. This is a plat which I got with my title report on this
property. I’ll – let me show it to Mr. Bill Gigray.
Gigray: What he read was what’s on the back of the plat.
Bird: (inaudible)
Higgins: So I would like to get this matter resolved without having to come back and get this matter resolved. I mean, I don’t know what else I can provide you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. Okay. Anybody else for a public hearing? Information? Okay.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing.
Anderson: I’ll second it again.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. You have your two choices here, folks; you can approve the request for vacation to the Council or you can do what Mr. Gigray suggests.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to try this. I move that we get the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request of vacation for the 20-foot emergency access of Mirage Meadows
Subdivision to a new access – I don’t know why that is even in it, but at the end of Oakcrest Drive by Robert Higgins, Block 1, Lot 16 and 17 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots
19 and 20 at Chateau Meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive and that they are to in this motion, they are to go after we pass it, they are to go get it approved by ACHD.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Bird. Is there a second to the motion? Hearing none, motion died for lack of second. I’ll entertain another motion.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Can there be discussion? I would like to know why he was suggesting to go to ACHD on when this was not a dedicated right-of-way.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that it being open to the public for five years it is a right-of-way and it can be proven to be a right-of-way, a public right-of-way that’s been used for five years
as a public access even thought the plat does call (inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Are you done, Keith? I’m sorry. I have questions. It sounds like we still have discrepancy between what our legal counsel is telling
us, what he believes and what the City Engineer and what the applicant believes, and I guess for me to vote on this with a clear conscience, I’d like to have this cleared up first.
I sympathize with the applicant, and I don’t want to send him running back and forth to ACHD a million times. Is that something that our staff could clear up between Bill and Gary,
or would it require more visits to ACHD?
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman Anderson, to answer your question, there’s a possibility if I could look at the plat and the language on the back of the plat which
I don’t have in front of me, I don’t know if this is a dedication to the public. If it is a dedication to the public which is standard language that I’ve seen in plats that show that
they’re dedicating these various things and it is, in fact, an access for emergency vehicles, I don’t think that providing access to some private property owner to have emergency access
across this to another piece of property. So therefore, it would seem that it would be some kind of dedication to the public which I think raises jurisdictional issues here which you
don’t have in other counties where you don’t have a county highway district because the City’s in control of its roads and streets as well, and can handle the whole thing itself. My
understanding of the law with regards to Highway District law is that they are in control of the public rights-of-way whether they’re dedicated or otherwise and it’s properly within
their jurisdiction to do final authority on vacation. As far as easements are concerned for utilities, we’ve been able to clarify with them that they don’t claim that jurisdiction.
We have interpreted the statute to provide that the City can do that by following the procedure and we don’t have the same problem. If this were utility easement, I wouldn’t have this
concern. Be that as it may, what we’ve done in the past is we have prepared Orders and simply granted the application, and you’ve directed so with the various Findings, and we’ve just
provided a proviso in there that the applicant is advised to consult with the Ada County Highway District to get a determination from them as to whether or no they claim any interest
in this right-of-way or not because, I assume, if they ever sell that property, that could show up as an exception on their title policy as to whether or not that vacation was done properly
or not. I’m just telling you what my view is about the law in this particular regards. You can take whatever action you see fit, but I see that as an issue here. I can put that language
in the order which was kind of what I understood the motion of Councilman Bird to be or I’ll leave it out.
Bird: That’s what I meant.
Anderson: Now with the explanation, I wouldn’t mind seconding Councilman Bird’s original motion if he wants to re-make it.
Bird: Re-state it because I can’t remember it. Go back to the tape. I’ll make it again. Let’s see. How did I do that? I move that we approve the vacation of 20-foot emergency access
of the Mirage Meadows Subdivision to a new access
located at the end of Oakcrest Drive by Robert Higgins, Block 1, Lot 16 and 17 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau Meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest
Drive with the addition of the owners are to go to Ada County Highway District and see if they have any interest in this.
Anderson: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson
Anderson: Following in the footsteps of my esteemed colleague and previous Council member Bentley, I would like to call for a ten-minute break.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to take a ten-minute break. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m.)
Corrie: We’re on Item No. 6. I’d like to take a call here. How many are here for the Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore? Okay. And how many are here for the Hawkins Smith,
the Walgreen’s? Okay. We may not get to Items 9 and 10. If there – 10:30 if it lasts longer because we won’t have enough time to get to all of them. We’ll ask – at 10:30 we’ll see
where we are at about 10:15. If we have enough time, we’ll poll the Council and see if they want to add the Item 9 and 10 postponed until the meeting on February 1st. We’ll kind of
give you an idea where we are and see what the time is at that time.
Item 6. Public Hearing: Request for vacation of the easement lying adjacent to the lot line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Thunder Creek Subdivision by Thunder Creek Partnership,
LLC – south of Cherry Lane, west of Ten Mile on Gray Cloud Way:
Corrie: Item No. 6, public hearing, this is a request for vacation of easement lying adjacent to the lot line common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Thunder Creek Subdivision by Thunder Creek
Partnership, LLC – south of Cherry Lane, west of
Ten Mile on Gray Cloud Way. At this time, I’ll open the public hearing on Item No. 6 and invite the Council to – All right. Staff comments on Item No. 6.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the Thunder Creek easement vacation?
Corrie: That’s correct.
Stiles: I need to make some changes to the recommendations to City Council. On Page 1 under Item 1, second line, it should be east of Ten Mile. On Page 2, Item 7, I believe this was
a carry-over from the previous application. This is not a matter of vandalism and trespassing. The applicant requests the easement vacation between Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 in order to
obtain an adjustment of lot lines. (inaudible discussion) I wanted Gary to check on Item 10 whether those relinquishments had been received from the utilities. Do you have that in
your file, Will? Relinquishments from the utilities on this? If Will doesn’t have those in his file, we should probably strike Item 10 in its entirety.
Corrie: Shari, is it we don’t have a No. 9?
Stiles: Oh. Well, if you just strike Item 10, then you’ll be okay.
Corrie: All right.
Stiles: I think that’s covered in the Recommendation anyway that before you get any building permits, they’ll have to furnish those relinquishments. This is just simply for adjustment
of the lot lines so that they can accommodate some housing units that otherwise they couldn’t build there. They will still meet the minimum requirements for an 8,000-square foot lot,
80-foot minimum frontage, and they – it’s just made the lots, as you can see it the application, a little more workable for the builder. Staff recommends approval with the recommendations
as amended.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Public has the request for the vacation on Item No. 6, the audience. Does anyone else from the public like to enter testimony on Item No. 6?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Seeing no one came forward, I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 6. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Is this a lot line adjustment/easement vacation? Is that what it is? Is that all it is is a lot line adjustment? Okay. We couldn’t figure that out.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the request for vacation of easement, lying adjacent to the lot line in common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the vacation of the easement on the Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 of Thunder Creek Subdivision subject to staff comments on Item 1; changing
west to east and Item 7 inserting the words obtain an adjustment of lot line and removing the words prevent vandalism and trespassing has occurred on the lot on property lines; and deleting
Item 10, and instruct the City Attorney to develop Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the recruits for vacation and easement of Lot No. 6 with the corrections that have been made by the Planning and Zoning Director
and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View:
Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex
by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View:
Corrie: Item No. 7 and 8 are public hearings on the Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, and since there was no objection to opening both public hearings on 7 and 8, we
will do so so we can have testimony on both of them. We’ll take them one at a time when we do the requests. Item No. 7 is public hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres
from RT to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View and also Item No. 8 is a public hearing, request for conditional use permit to
provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O zone proposed Magic View Office Complex. At this time I’ll open the public hearing and have staff comments
first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I have some suggested changes to the recommendations to City Council. I’ll begin with the annexation and zoning recommendations. On Page 1, Item 6 should
read subject property is bordered to the north by Greenhill Estates Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut south and east sides of the property. It
should be south and east instead of all. Page 2, Item 10, the last line Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as commercial should be added and mixed/planned use development.
Item 12 should be re-numbered to 11. Page 4 we’re requesting some rather significant changes. There was significant discussion about the buffering between Greenhill Estates Subdivision
and this development. We would ask that Item 1.10 be revised to read: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30-foot high buffer
– I’m sorry. Okay. Let me start over. 1.10: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30-foot wide buffer with a 4-foot high
berm and a 6-foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel B. That would be the eastern most parcel that has the Ada County Highway District retention
pond. As an explanation to that, that portion there where the retention pond is shown on that parcel is going to be owned by Ada County Highway District. I think all of you are more
than familiar with the way Ada County Highway District maintains those parcels. They’re very concerned about aesthetics and beautiful landscaping. So that is the reason why we asked
the applicant to enter into that agreement to make sure that it is landscaped and that they are responsible for the construction of the fence and the appearance of that entire area.
I’d like to ask that 1.11 be the next item that would read: Applicant shall construct a minimum 20-foot wide buffer with a 4-foot high berm and a 6-foot high solid, wooden fence on
top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel A. Item 1.11 would then become 1.12. 1.12 would become 1.13. We’d ask that the requirement or the staff recommendation for the plat
be removed that last sentence and instead of that sentence that the following be added: Applicant shall coordinate with Public
Works Director and Planning and Zoning Director for direction on appropriate action to accomplish subdivision and/or lot line adjustment. We still need to work on some standards for
those lot line adjustments or one-time splits, and I think as part of the standards, we probably won’t include a roadway dedication to be permitted as part of a one-time split, but since
this is a roadway section that is very much needed and should be included in our Comprehensive Plan, in fact, is something that we need to have done. We may develop some standards for
that, but Gary and I can both work with Jonathan to work out the best way for that. Item 1.13 would then become 1.14. We’d ask that a sentence be added to the end: Applicant shall
vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. The applicant very eloquently made his case at Planning and Zoning Commission for removal of the Development Agreement
requirement. They felt it was too restrictive and it tied them down too much to exactly what they’re proposing which is kind of the idea of a Development Agreement. If the Development
Agreement is not required by the City Council, I would ask that you add an Item 1.15 included as part of the annexation that reads: As a condition of annexation, all uses are to be
developed under the conditional use process as a planned development. That way if they make significant changes to their proposal, we’ll send them back through the process. Maybe legal
counsel has something to say on that. We have in the past included that directly in the Annexation Ordinance that all uses would require to be developed under the conditional use process.
On the conditional use portion, Page 4, Item 1.10 of the Recommendations to City Council, staff would support on Line 4, end of the sentence striking “approval” and inserting “building
permit issuance.” So it would read that the conditional use permit will become null and void if the construction’s not complete within two years from the date of the building permit
issuance instead of two years from date of approval here which seemed a more reasonable timeframe. Under 1.11, the staff’s recommendation that all free-standing and wall signs be included
and approved as part of this application. No details have been forthcoming for any of those signs that because, basically, they don’t have tenants now, but I think that we should set
some restrictions on at least the number and the maximum height of those free-standing signs due to the experience we’ve had with the Eagle Partners project, we had this same – a similar
comment to that signage shall be approved as part of the application. No details were ever submitted, so they’ve gone through one modification request for 100-foot pole sign, and they’re
back again with another application for a 77-foot high pole sign. So I think if we could add somewhere within the text of this that free-standing signs are limited to four with a maximum
height of ten feet or they can make their case if they want to attempt something else, but I think we need to put some definite limitations on this because we don’t want to have to negotiate
with every sign that comes through and have to make a judgement call on what a significant change is to their plan. On Page 5, Item 1.15, that could be stricken as they have provided
those details. I believe they were presented at Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 6, Item 1.24 should read: A four-foot high berm and six-foot high solid fence is required for
the boundaries adjacent to the Greenhill Estates lots. That was covered in the annexation and zoning, but it
would be good to reiterate it in the conditional use permit. Other than that, we had no further comment. This is a good project. The roadway is needed, and staff recommends approval
with the changes noted.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions of Shari at this point?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have one. Shari, you struck a nerve again with that sign deal with me. You said you didn’t want to make a judgement call, but then you kind of rolled your eyes and said
I’m thinking in the neighborhood of 10-foot, yet we have another application that’s on Fairview that you’re talking about 20-foot. Have you come up with a Sign Ordinance and these seem
very much like judgement calls to me like you’re making a judgement. Here it’s 10 foot, another it’s 20 foot. How do you determine what you’re going to allow for height?
Stiles: Where was it 20 feet?
Anderson: I think it’s on the – one of these other projects that we were looking at. The Walgreen I think is a 20-foot sign recommended there.
Stiles: No. That was a 72-foot maximum. Albertson’s which is way back -- you can’t even see the building. The building’s higher than 20 feet. It’s not along an entryway corridor.
You wouldn’t even notice a 20-foot high sign back there. The reason I recommend the 20 feet is because directly south of this property, this entire five-acre parcel has restricted
itself to a maximum 10-foot high free-standing signs. Every lot in that, they have four or five lots in there, and they have made a commitment as part of their annexation and zoning
that they will not exceed that. As a condition of annexation and zoning and the conditional use permit, we could say you can only have two-foot high signs.
Anderson: I understand that. I’m just --
Stiles: I would rather –
Anderson: -- trying to urge you to – let’s get that Sign Ordinance up so you’re not making a judgement on all these so that we can push forward with that, and then you’ve got something
to go by.
Stiles: I would rather make a legal judgement – I mean that becomes a legal requirement rather than not have any requirement and then have to deal with each one when they come in and
make that judgement call and have nothing to stand on. That’s why I ask (inaudible).
Anderson: Okay.
Corrie: Any further comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: This is a public hearing. Any developer?
Seel: Good evening, Mayor, Council members. We have read through the report –
Corrie: Name.
Seel: I’m sorry. Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise. We’ve read through the report, and we have no problems. I don’t know if we want to talk about
the annexation first or if we want to merge them together.
Corrie: Go ahead and do the annexation.
Seel: Annexation? Okay. We’ll talk about the annexation first. We read through the annexation, the report that you received. We have no problems with that. With respect to the
annexation and rezone, recommendations that are included on the letter from Shari, we also have no problems with that. We talked to her about that already. I’m certainly pleased to
answer questions you have. We’ll try to keep this short.
Corrie: Okay. Council?
Bird: Which letter are you talking about, Jonathan?
Seel: I’m talking about this one that Shari had provided to me this evening which reflects the modifications she just discussed with you.
Stiles: They don’t have that.
Bird: We don’t have a copy of it? So we need to enter it into the records?
Stiles: The memo was to myself and Jonathan and the City Clerk from Brad Hawkins-Clark, and I went over every one of those items --
Bird: Oh. Okay.
Stiles: -- verbally.
Seel: Yeah. We’re in agreement with them, so, I was under the understanding you had this.
Corrie: Okay. And the request for the conditional use permit?
Seel: Okay. You want to do that next, huh?
Corrie: If you’re through with –
Seel: Yeah. We’re through with that. With respect to the conditional use permit, again, reading the report, the recommendations provided to you, we’re in agreement with that, and
we’re in agreement with the conditions, again, that were applied here with, I guess, with exception of a couple things I want to clarify. One, I talked a little bit with Shari about
the signage, and I understand where Shari’s coming from with her concern for signage. I’m a little reluctant right now to kind of pull something out without understanding what we’re
going to be potentially developing there. I would like to have the flexibility based on that. If you look at most of our projects throughout the City of Boise, our signage is never
– has not been above ten feet. Typically it’s been below that. In fact, we’ve submitted a concept plan reflecting one that was seven feet. But there may be instances where we may
need a sign that is slightly higher than that, so I would like to suggest that we have some flexibility in that depending on what we’re going to get in there, we had talked about a restaurant.
And if it’s a restaurant, maybe we will need to look at a little bit higher sign. So I guess I’m just trying to leave that somewhat open at this point to give us the opportunity depending
on what we arrive at to determine then instead of locking ourselves into ten feet at this point which may or may not be, you know, may be acceptable. I don’t know. So I’m a little
uncomfortable in that. The other thing I’ll just mention, I don’t know, Shari, if you didn’t mention 1.4 on Page 3. I didn’t –
*** End of Side 3 ***
Stiles: -- tonight because I’m not in agreement with changing that.
Seel: Okay. Well, I don’t know if it’s just simply we need clarification on it. I mean, I can explain – my concern about that one, I don’t know if you want to (inaudible) rain on
your parade here.
Stiles: Mr. Seel had a concern because on Page 3, Item 1.4 of the conditional use permit recommendation, it speaks to providing sewer and water to and through the development. I believe
that is an ordinance requirement, and I felt it was covered by the remainder of that paragraph that said project designer is to coordinate sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.
Mr. Seel’s concern is that he’s going to be required to extend sewer and water to and through his property whether or not it’s needed. It’s – that’s just the wording out of our ordinance.
That’s the reason it reads the way it is. That’s why I thought it
should just stay as it read because the Public Works Department is not going to require him to build lines that are not necessary.
Seel: That was my only concern. It was more simply a clarification. If we can tie to sewer on Magic View, and I understand we can. I understand with water we can’t. But in the –
if, in fact, we can go ahead and tie to sewer on Magic View, I don’t want to have language in there that might imply down the road that we need to bring sewer through with what’s referred
to as St. Luke’s Street. As we all know, memories fade, and a year from now or a year-and-a-half from now, somebody looks back and says, oh, Mr. Moore, you were supposed to put sewer
down St. Luke’s Street. It says it right here, to and through. So I would just like to have some clarification here that if it’s necessary, we would put it in, but if it’s not necessary
that it will not be a requirement. I’m not trying to go against the ordinance because we’ve had to do the to-and-through policy before. I think it’s just clarification because we’re
talking two streets here with sewer and water right now. That’s my only thing.
Corrie: But you do agree, Jonathan, that perhaps that last sentence does take that into consideration?
Seel: I think it generally does. I guess it doesn’t completely satisfy me. You know, I just want it – like I say, I just want something in my mind that’s a little clearer on that.
As we say, we’re talking two streets. We’re going to be (inaudible) ACHD is depending. I just don’t want that to become an issue, and if it’s not necessary and someone down the road
decides it, it would be nice to have, but we don’t necessarily need it. So maybe I’m being a little picky on this, but as I say, we believe memories fade. So anyway, it’s a minor thing.
I think it’s just simply that and the signage are the only two items that I had any comments; otherwise, we’re in agreement with this.
Corrie: Council, any question of Jonathan?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on Item 7 the annexation and also the conditional use permit? Yes, sir.
Harl: My name is Chuck Harl and I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. Thank you for your time this evening. I just would like to clarify that I’m a resident in Greenhill Estates,
and I would like to clarify a couple of things here. In particular, the berm issue because it becomes a noise, light and privacy issue of separation between this project and our residential
subdivision. At the Planning and Zoning meeting, we somehow came up with this four-foot berm on a 35-foot wide piece of right-of-way, and it comes out to a 3:1 ratio, and I’m still
confused on how this works. Because even if the 35 feet is split in half, that’s 17 feet, and 3:1 is not four. I – for some reason, I think we can raise this berm for a little bit
more or a
little bit more of a privacy issue is what I’m concerned about here. We talked about before what goes on top of this berm. I’m hearing now that we want a solid six-foot fence that’s
made out of wood. At the P & Z meeting, we had requested either brick or vinyl, something that doesn’t need long-term maintenance. Something that is permanent. This is what we’re
looking for. I don’t think it’s really out of the question to do something like this if you look at the maintenance costs that are going to be incurred by having wood on there as to
no maintenance on the other things. If we could have some clarification on why exactly this berm is going to only be four-foot high, I would really appreciate that. I guess those are
my comments.
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) comments, questions at this point? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Yes, sir.
Foley: My name is Howard Foley. I reside at 2875 Autumn Way in Meridian, Idaho. I’m a resident of Greenhill Estates Subdivision, also, and I have, in addition to Mr. Harl’s comments
or concerns, two others. I have the same concern that was raised by Shari regarding the sign and Sign Ordinance. Our subdivision has been through this process with Eagle Partners before
where the sign’s not been designated and we’ve been back to hearings, and we’ve had discussions about 100-foot signs and whatever. Now, I understand we’re going to be maybe having another
hearing about a 72-foot sign, and this seems to be repetitious, and it seems that this is probably the time and the place for these discussions to end so we don’t find ourselves back
again and again. It seems appropriate to me that if these are going to be office buildings that the signage be consistent with office buildings. That they be ground-level monument
signs or that they be signs on the buildings themselves, that they not be free-standing, illuminated signs. Assuming that the offices will be open from eight to five, you know, I’m
just not sure we need 10, or as Councilman Anderson asked, 20-foot or whatever they are illuminated signs. I know you’ve heard from us in our subdivision on too many occasions, but
I can assure you we’re well illuminated by signage from Jackson’s and the Chevron’s and the McDonald’s in our backyards as it is, and the further that development comes down our backyards,
the bigger the concern for us with free-standing, internally illuminated signs – just some definition of what that’s going to be and some consistency in terms with the development seems
appropriate to us. Certainly, the buildings have to have signage, and we understand that, but we just don’t see the need for it to be wide open and then the signage issues that we’ve
had to address before, all of us. Secondly, I think there ought to be a Development Agreement. When I first heard about the project and viewed it, I understand there is a proposal
for a restaurant. At one time, I’d heard the proposal was that the restaurant would be internal to the office facility itself, would be one of those things where people who worked inside
the office buildings would come and have lunch or whatever the case might be. Now I understand that the developer’s not exactly sure what they want. They really don’t want to be tied
down, understandably, I guess, if you were in our position, we’d like them tied down. We’d like to know what they’re
going to do, we want to know if there’s going to be restaurants that extend beyond the eight to five timeframe, and if so, what kind of traffic and lighting, and those kinds of things
are going to go on. If that is done by the mechanism of a Development Agreement, many of the applicants that come before you are required to enter into Development Agreements, and that’s
a safeguard for us through your process, and I’d ask that you pose that on the applicant. Thanks.
Corrie: Any questions for Howard?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Howard. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Jonathan, any comments on the questions that were raised?
Seel: Yes. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. I think with respect to the question about the berm and the fence, I think the thinking behind that was that if we have a four-foot berm
and a six-foot feet, you basically have ten feet there. I think that would obstruct any type of lighting that would come from the cars. I can appreciate their concern with the noise
and lighting, and so I think that was where it was addressed; the fact that we would put a four-foot berm with a six-foot fence on top of it which would give you your ten feet. Presumably,
that should be adequate to eliminate the lighting. As far as the sound goes, I’m not sure that you’re ever going to completely eliminate noise there, and (inaudible) given the fact
that you also have, I don’t know how many thousands of cars running up and down Eagle Road every day and every night. So that’s where that came from. With respect to the question of
the fence, I don’t recall – my memory’s failed me before, but I don’t recall any discussion or approval about a vinyl or brick fence. I do recall some discussions about that, but we
would be opposed to that. You start getting into brick, you get into something very substantial in terms of costs. It’s not cheap. Winston Moore, I think you’re probably all familiar,
is a well-respected developer in this community. He’s not one that kind of comes in here, throws up a project, sells it and blows out of town. It’s in his best interest to maintain
this fence, too. We don’t want that to deteriorate if we end up, in fact, putting up a wood fence. We want that to look nice. If that starts to deteriorate, then, obvious, that impacts
our marketing ability. We want full buildings. So, again, I would like to say that we would (inaudible) wood fence. It would be attractive, it would be well-maintained as well as
the landscaping that’s in our best interest. As far as the restaurant goes, I would point out that we also say here that we are here for a conditional use permit. In the event that
we do come in for a restaurant, we will come back for a CU. So we will come back at that point and there would be conditions put on us. At this point, we don’t know what kind of restaurant
it is. We don’t know what kind of hours of operation. This is a concept. We know generally how it’s going to look, but we don’t – that’s one of the reasons we said to P & Z and we’re
saying to City Council, that we are prepared to come back in the event it is a
restaurant and ask for a conditional use permit for that project. So you have essentially another bite of the apple down the road as well as the homeowners who can either say, yes,
that’s acceptable, or, no, we have a real problem with that. So we are not proposing right now that, yeah, we are going to create a restaurant tomorrow based on this. So I think that’s
an important point, and I think that’s my only comments.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Generally what building you’d be looking at for a restaurant?
Seel: Yes. I think most likely if you’re looking at it, you’d look at that building right there. (inaudible) Right there. You know, our feeling is that because that is so – that
is close to the Chevron Station that that’s going to be the most likely place for a restaurant. We also feel that it’s far enough away from the homeowners that will not be disruptive
to them – certainly minimize any disruptions to them. That is right now what we visualize it as working out that way. I think, again, that would minimize it and it backs up the gas
station would be the most likely place.
Anderson: Thank you.
Seel: Any other questions?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Mr. Seel, would you be – since you’d have to come back for a CUP if you put a restaurant in that spot to agree to a height on your signs because that sign could be designated
with that piece and could come through with a CUP at that point.
Seel: Well, again, I would prefer at that point to address the sign on that. Without knowing what type of restaurant it is –
deWeerd: Exactly. That’s my point. You could commit to a height on the other facilities, but in case that you did have to come back for a CUP on that particular area, you could come
back with the sign package at that time as well.
Seel: I don’t see -- like I say, if you look around at anything that Winston Moore’s done, drive up and down Emerald or over Forest River (sic) stuff, you’ll see that those signs are
monument-type signs that I think are seven, eight feet tall. They’re no more than that. They’re a brick structure with (inaudible). They
have lights that shine up. They’re not internally illuminated. I don’t see where that will, personally, where that will be a problem. I think that will go well with an office complex.
deWeerd: Would you have a problem putting a ten-foot maximum on signage with the exception if you come back with a CUP on the particular lot.
Seel: I don’t think so. I think that’s reasonable. Again, I understand the homeowners’ concerns that they don’t want 150-foot sign shining down into the backyard. We can appreciate
that; the homeowners’ concerns about that.
deWeerd: Just one last thing. I know that Shari and her changes had mentioned if we didn’t do a Development Agreement there was some other verbiage that she suggested. Do you have
a problem with either of those?
Seel: No. Because what we presented here is what we think is a concept, the way it will generally look. We’ve talked about the building, the westerly (inaudible), and I can’t remember
if that’s Parcel A, but the northerly building would be a one-story. Again, we know we’re backing up to neighborhoods, so we don’t want it to be two-stories. The one below would be
potentially a two-story. So we see this as kind of a concept plan that we’re going to do, so we’re comfortable with trying to stay within these perimeters. I don’t see where we’re going
to erratically deviate. We’re not going to throw five buildings on this one and six on that one or something like that.
deWeerd: So you wouldn’t object to a Development Agreement?
Seel: A Development Agreement? Yes, I would.
deWeerd: That was part of my question. Okay.
Seel: Yeah. That’s the whole thing. That’s what we argued with before was that we don’t want to get locked in, quite honestly, if we are forced for that, then, you know, we don’t
know at this point what precisely we’re going to do, and if you get into Development Agreements, they’re a very specific thing. You have a concept here, and I don’t know if we – we
don’t – we’re opposed to that.
deWeerd: That’s all I had.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Seel: Okay. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Any other questions or any other testimony you would like to hear, Council?
Bird: I have none.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just for staff. Shari, since I didn’t write every change down that you had suggested, in regards to the Development Agreement versus the other alternative, what
are the differences between those two?
Stiles: Well, a Development Agreement will definitely lock them into exactly what they proposed, what they’ve shown. I saw Mr. Gigray over there shaking his head when I was talking
about just making it a part of the annexation that all uses had to be developed under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. I think that we can do it that way.
I think it can be included in the Annexation Ordinance that that’s a condition. It’s just as easy, in fact, probably easier to track than a Development Agreement; less staff intensive.
I’m sure Mr. Gigray wouldn’t mind getting rid of some Development Agreements whenever he has the opportunity. I think we have the same control by going with the conditional use permit
process as we would through a Development Agreement with a lot fewer trees killed.
deWeerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: With that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 7 and Item No. 8.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 7, request for annexation and zoning, and Item No. 8, request for conditional use permit. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay, Council. Let’s take then one at a time. Item No. 7. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: I would advise the Council that it would be my legal opinion that regarding Development Agreements that you can use them to craft conditions of development as well as conditions
of use. You don’t have to include both. They
can include one or the other. I do not recommend that you have an Annexation and a Zoning Ordinance that has conditions in the Zoning Ordinance because I do not feel that there is clear
statutory authority allowing that. I think the vehicle which the Land Use Planning Act provides as a Development Agreement is a condition of a rezone or a zoning designation, and that’s
why we’ve used those. Now, if your ordinance which is proposed on this annexation requires a conditional use permit in an L-O zone for what they proposed to do, then that would take
care of itself under the Zoning Ordinance. If it doesn’t require a conditional use permit, then if there’s part of this that wouldn’t be governed by the conditional use permit, then
the zoning without a Development Agreement wouldn’t control it. They would be able to do what the zone would allow.
Corrie: Any discussion?
Bird: I think Shari’s got something to say.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I need to address what Bill just said. If I’m hearing you right, you’re saying that you can’t include in an Annexation Ordinance that as a condition
of annexation, all uses shall be developed as conditional uses, and that under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. You can’t do that?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, no. We can write it that way, I just don’t recommend that. I don’t think that there’s clear statutory authority. I think you have an Annexation
Ordinance that includes property, an annexation and then we’re required as soon as possible to zone it, and that Annexation Ordinance includes a designation of the property in a zone.
We have an ordinance that prescribes what you can use property for in a particular zone. We can’t rewrite that Zoning Ordinance in an Annexation Ordinance, and I wouldn’t recommend
that we try to do so, and I think that’s the idea of Development Agreements and why the statutes allow us to use them so that through the Development Agreement as a condition of that
zoning you can further limit the use of the property and/or the development of the property in that agreement. Now, if, for instance, the annexation were to the L-O zone and the L-O
zone had requirements in it that this developer, whatever that is they wanted to do, required a conditional use permit by the terms of the L-O zone, then what you’ve recommended works
under the terms of our own Zoning Ordinance. If that doesn’t work, if then – if you have an annexation into an L-O zone, then they can, without a Development Agreement, then they would
be able to develop the property subject to whatever uses are permitted in that zone.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: This is for Mr. Gigray. But if we, in approving the annexation and zoning to an L-O, require that all buildings come under conditional use permit, then that takes – they can’t
(inaudible) go back on that, can they? That takes place of the Development Agreement?
Gigray: I’ll be directed to draft the ordinance as you require. I just don’t recommend that because I think then you get into issues of conditional zoning, but by specific ordinances,
you have an ordinance that prescribes your zoning regulations, and you can’t amend that by various annexations. You have to go back and change the whole ordinance. But you can, in
the Idaho Land Use Planning Act specifically gives you authority if you choose to exercise it, to govern and restrict as a condition of the zoning, the use and/or the development of
the property. You don’t have to do both. You can just do one. Or you could do both, depending on how you see the evidence in the particular case and what’s reasonable. But if you
started annexing property and zoning it subject to conditions, we’d have a bunch of mini-zoning ordinances all over the place with every annexation, and I just don’t see in the Idaho
Code clear authority to do that. But if you direct me to draft the ordinance, I have to do what I’m directed to do by the governing body which you are.
Corrie: Okay. It looks like you’ve got two choices. Annexation and zoning with the Development Agreement or with the conditional use permit on the zoning.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: May I ask Shari – Shari, if I recall, I don’t believe it’s probably been the two years I’ve been on here, but I believe we’ve done a lot of annexations and zonings with conditional
use permits, have we not, instead of Development Agreements?
Stiles: Most of them ended up requiring a Development Agreement. Practically everything that’s been annexed since 1994 has a condition that they enter into a Development Agreement.
Bird: Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I just have a general question, then. This seems like a development that we’re not the only city that has these types of developments where we don’t actually know
who the tenants are going to be at this point. How are those other cities dealing with this same type of issue? Are they requiring
Development Agreements or are we – is our ordinance restricting us or do we need to look at that? I’m not – anybody that can answer it, I guess.
Bird: I’m with Councilman Anderson. I’d like to know, too.
Corrie: Shari, any idea?
Stiles: I believe Star is getting into requiring Development Agreements, Eagle is way different and does require some Development Agreements, but they also have very restrictive design
review guidelines. Boise City has a lot of zones that are design review. They have Design Review Committees which helps them a lot, but when you are just trying to do it with Planning
and Zoning and Council and staff, it gets down to design review of practically every project that comes through the door. That’s why we put the Development Agreement requirement on
them because we may have conditions that aren’t necessarily outlined in the existing ordinance that is sometimes a lot of it’s site-specific, too. Depending on where it is, what the
surrounding uses are, some of their presentations they may make during the public hearings that they may say they’re going to do that, but if you can really tie them down with a Development
Agreement, it’s easier to enforce, but I don’t know how many Development Agreements Boise City has done. I know that they do have the mechanism for them, but I believe, and maybe Jonathan
can even answer that, too. It’s governed more by design review in those other cities.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: It seems that you have a little bit more control, a little bit more chance of feedback with a conditional use permit, though. At least you can see what they’re proposing.
If it’s just under a Development Agreement, you don’t see it, if it’s permitted.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: I don’t particularly like the way Development Agreements are turning out as far as – I mean, they are extremely restrictive. It says – it has – it’s 50 pages long, it has the
Findings attached to it, it has an exact site plan that sometimes is so restrictive that it doesn’t leave them any room for even slight modifications because of the way that it’s written.
deWeerd: So it’s almost better off that they come in and ask for annexation and zoning without a plan. I’ve seen that happen. So why on earth do we allow that to happen and don’t
put any conditional use permit requirements on but we’re holding – we’re considering holding this one up because the CUP process is not the way to go?
Corrie: I don’t think it’s not a way to go. It’s just one of the ways. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the only time that you have authority to require a conditional use permit is if the applicant is in a zone and they propose a use of that
property that that Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit. They’ve already been annexed, they’re already subject to a Zoning Ordinance that applies to that property, and
they propose to, let’s say, put a gas station in an L-O zone, and in order to use that as a gas station, takes a conditional use permit. Then you go through and they go through the
conditional use permit. But if the L-O zone allows an office building, they don’t need a conditional use permit because the zone allows an office building. Now, if in a Development
Agreement, you require as a condition of giving the L-O zone to the applicant that they go through a conditional use permit in order to get the office building, you need a Development
Agreement in my opinion. That’s an example. Obviously, in this application, one of these would be subject to a conditional use permit, but I’m saying do not pass annexation ordinances
with zoning designations that include conditions on the zone because I don’t think you have clear, legal authority to do that. You have your zoning ordinance, and once you’re designated
in that zone, it’s subject to the terms and conditions of that zone whatever they may be. Now, if you want to limit that further, then you do a Development Agreement. Whether or not
you do that is a matter of discretion and determination. Yes, you could accommodate an application for annexation and zoning and no development, and if you feel in your wisdom that’s
proper, you’d grant the annexation and zoning with no conditions. You know, those are going to be fact-driven by each application.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Mr. Gigray, so can you request that a Development Agreement be made but not particularly tying to that and ask for them to come through with conditional use permits with their
–
Gigray: You could have a Development Agreement simply just governed the use, and it’d have a provision in there that any uses proposed of the property or any development of the property
would require a conditional use process and of conditions.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
deWeerd: Well, Mr. Mayor, I guess some of the change in this, I would be interested to hear what the applicant had to say.
Corrie: We can’t do it. It’s a public hearing.
deWeerd: That would be my proposal. I would move that we re-open the public hearing.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to re-open the public hearing on Item No. 7 and 8. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: All right. Let’s hear what you’ve got to say, Jonathan.
Seel: I think there’s a couple things to think about here. This kind of caught me flatfooted because I didn’t think we’d be going through this again. The City needs the road and County
wants to put it in, and Winston Moore – let me back up. The process behind us was Winston wanted to, about six months ago, wanted to get an idea how this road would be laid out. He
went to ACHD and said to them, we’d like to know how much right-of-way you’ll be taking and how’s this going to be used so we can begin to design a concept plan on this project so we
can begin to market it. ACHD’s comment at that point was, okay, you go ahead and submit an application, and based on that, we’ll be able to determine what kind of road we put. Based
on that, we came up with a concept plan is what we’re proposing here which we don’t see is going to radically deviate from this. This is an L-O zone, we are allowed to put office in
here. With multiple office, we go through the conditional use. So we submitted this concept plan without knowing precisely how this is all going to work out because we haven’t started
the marketing process yet, and we don’t know how market conditions are going to dictate for this. So we have a concept plan here. I don’t want to say this as a threat, but this is
almost verbatim from Winston, is if the City of Meridian requires me to do a Development Agreement that’s very specific, then I’ll simply pull the application. He doesn’t want to get
locked into something because we don’t know. As Shari’s said, we’ve gone through this before where it gets so specific is the type of building, the size, the footprint and everything
else, and we begin to deviate from that, we’re back here, and we don’t want to do that. That’s just counterproductive. I don’t think you enjoy listening to me talk, and I certainly
don’t want to be here until 11:00 multiple times. I’m not trying to be smart here, I’m just trying to lay it out. What we’re trying to do is say, okay, this is generally what we’re
going to do. It’s an L-O zone. The homeowners, from what I understand, and Billy Ray is probably spent many meetings here with homeowners and their concerns, they wanted office, we’re
proposing office with a possibility of a restaurant which we will come back under a conditional use permit to provide. So we’re not really talking about a restaurant today. The restaurant
is for all intents and purposes in my mind off the table. We’re just saying that there’s just a possibility down the road, we’re kind of laying out. Maybe it’d be better if we never
had. So we’re trying to give you a concept plan, but we don’t know if this is specific. If we get a particular type of tenants or
tenant, they may dictate a different type of design for us, then we’re back here again, and we don’t want to do that. Shari says, if you get these 50-page Development Agreements that
are just so onerous as just a – you can go right one foot and then left another foot, and that’s it. As I said, in the City of Boise, we have never done a Development Agreement. When
we have, we started to look at one that was specific to the use, and that’s it. It didn’t get into all the other details. Quite honestly, you really do want to avoid it for that reason
because we don’t know. If we are specifically tied, my feeling is Winston Moore is going to say let’s pull this. Then you don’t have the road. That’s a catalyst to this. Again, I’m
not trying to make threats here. He doesn’t want to get locked into that because he doesn’t know. I’m not sure if I understand all the nuances of these issues and all. All I know
is we are trying to propose something here which is an office in an L-O zone. We’re trying to propose something here that is generally what we’re going to propose and we’d like to get
approval (inaudible) conditional use permit. That’s what we’re trying – I’m sorry. I don’t understand all the details of it, but that’s what we’re really trying to do. Again, if the
City comes back and says, we’re going to go through this very specific Development Agreement, we can’t do that because we don’t know and we don’t want to get ourselves locked into it.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Jonathan, I think what we’re hearing from our legal counsel is that he recommends that the State Land Use Planning Act says that we ought to use the Development Agreement.
What we’re talking about here is one that would be fairly loosely written that would allow you to do some of the things that you’re asking. Do you think Mr. Moore would be opposed
to something like that?
Seel: I think if it’s something like that and it’s a fairly loose in nature and again, it speaks generally to this concept, then I think he would not be opposed to it. I can’t speak
for him, but that would be my gut feeling. Again, if it takes (inaudible) other thing where we’re going to get very specific, then, no, that’s not going to work. Then again, I’m not
trying to – I don’t know what the term is here – I’m just trying to see where our dilemma is here, but we don’t want to get boxed in. I think it can be fairly specific, like, okay,
you’re going to have office use and you’re going to have four buildings, and there might be down the road possibly that one might be a restaurant or something like that, I don’t know
if that’s legal or not. Then, yes. Yes. We can do that. Again, we’re talking about a respected developer who’s not going to come in and put up garbage here. This land is not coming
cheap. I think that’s what we’re trying to achieve. I think that if we can do that, we can work it. We would like to do this, we would like to build this project. We don’t know if
it’s going to be two months from now, six months or two years from now, but we would like to build this. We would like to see this road in. I think it’s in the benefit of everybody
else. So if we can achieve
something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we’re not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We’re basically talking office here, and we will say office,
and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for – oh, we changed our mind, and we’d
like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We’d like to put a retail complex. We won’t and we said that at P & Z. I think we’re trying to be fairly specific and give everybody
the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question.
Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment.
Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard.
Foley: I’m Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don’t represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I’m not opposed to a general, loosely-written Development Agreement.
My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn’t office building. That’s my concern, and I want the staff or the City to continue to have some control
over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L-O, you’re done. No other conditions. You can’t put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it’s
limited office, it’s just a limited office. Restaurants aren’t limited offices. That’s my only concern that they’re continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review,
then that would be some further control. We just don’t have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable to me as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that
simply said, if you’re going to do something beyond limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that’s akin to the conditional use permit or something that
gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee, these are the concerns that we have. That’s really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel
to have said if that’s acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know, we’ve had these issues before where we think we know what’s going on,
and then it’s sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don’t want to do this anymore either. So, that’s my only concern.
Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan?
Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that’s all we’re really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will
be very specific. It’s not going to be a gas station, it’s not going to
be retail, it’s not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It’s going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office.
Then, if we do come with a restaurant, we’ll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you’ve got that second bite at the apple. So I think we’re all in agreement here. You
know, I think we could accept that.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning?
Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it.
deWeerd: I knew –
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Oh. I’m sorry. Then, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we have a Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R-T to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H.
Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose – very general L-O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for
a CUP.
Anderson: Second.
deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include –
Corrie: Just a second. Motion is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments –
Bird: It includes staff comments --
deWeerd: -- and would you include –
Bird: -- and Development Agreement.
deWeerd: -- anything on the signage?
Bird: The signage is in the staff comments.
deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this?
Bird: Ten foot, yeah.
Stiles: It’s just a suggestion.
Bird: We don’t have an ordinance.
Anderson: Wouldn’t that be covered under the CUP?
deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP.
Corrie: All right. Any other discussion?
Gigray: Point of clarification.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended
by staff and staff’s comments here today?
Bird: Yes, it is.
Gigray: Okay.
Corrie: Is that agreeable on the second?
Anderson: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex
by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I’m not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings
of Facts and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct?
Corrie: That’s part of the conditional use.
deWeerd: Just wanted clarification.
Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, given the hour, it’s 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen’s on 9 and 10. I would recommend to the Council, it’s your decision, that we have
that on the 1st on the public hearing continued to the next meeting.
Bird: Yeah. We’ve had I’ll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them – they were under the impression that we weren’t going to go. There’s some sitting back
out there, but there were four or five sitting right –
Gigray: (inaudible)
Bird: Is there anybody that can’t come back, Mayor, (inaudible) 1st?
Corrie: Is there anybody that can’t come back on the 1st of February? We can take –
Hawker: Mr. Mayor, Colby Hawker, Hawkins Smith – if we –
Corrie: It’s not open yet. Let me – I just wanted to know if – the reason you can’t.
Hawker: I’m with the applicant, and our issue is simply with we have made a commitment on the property, and we have got to finalize where we are in this project or our commitments on
this thing – we started – we applied in August, we were deferred through Planning and Zoning, we were deferred through ACHD, and it just keeps going on and on and on, and I know the
timing was bad with the first of the year and the new City Council members that have come on for the last hearing that we were supposed to be on. So –
Corrie: One of the things, if I open it, it’ll have to be continued to the first, so it’ll be the same thing because we’ve got people that left that have a right to testify.
Hawker: Well, I understand. I don’t know what to say other than (inaudible) specific commitments that we have got to make and I would just hate to have that go – I think we have a
plan in front of the City Council that we can talk about tonight. I know there are several neighbors that had some concerns, and I think we’ve got a plan that we will present to you
that will alleviate the concerns that they had.
Corrie: That may well be, but they’re not here.
Hawker: Well (inaudible) –
Corrie: So that’s why we have to have the continued public hearing. You’re in a Catch-22 here. Some people have left because of the hour.
Hawker: I understand.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, can I explain something? The Mayor asked earlier if there was anybody here that, you know, -- told them that if it comes 10:30, we were going to decide on these two
things to go, and then at that point, five or six people left. It would not be fair to them, and I understand your dilemma, you know, and I realize you’ve went on about six months trying
to get this thing through, but it’s
not fair to those people that were under the impression that we were not going to have a public hearing. –
*** End of Side 4 ***
Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a single-tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window (Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner
of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Hawker: -- I understand that.
Bird: I understand your dilemma.
Hawker: It’s an unfortunate situation, I guess. We’ve just been involved with this process for so long, and our commitments that we can make to the landowners out there – you know,
the property that we’re taking down as part of this, there’s a huge financial commitment that we have to make to go ahead and close on those pieces of property, and without knowing that
my development is approved as part of this, there’s a huge financial risk that I take there.
Bird: When do you have to make the commitment?
Hawker: Well, our commitments have to be made by the end of this month.
Bird: By the first of February? You couldn’t get a 15-day extension on those guys? I don’t think somebody’s going to jump in and buy it up (inaudible)
Hawker: I don’t know. (inaudible) approach them and make that recommendation. That’s my concern.
Bird: And I apologize for the – you know, we can only go so much –
Corrie: The thing is, you wouldn’t get a commitment from the Council anyway until they voted the 1st if they had it tonight. So you’re still in a Catch-22. They have to approve the
Findings of Facts on the 1st, so you’re not in time anyway.
Hawker: Sure. I understand.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: In light of that and the hour, I would make a motion that we table the two public hearings on Items 9 and 10 until the 1st of February’s meeting.
Bird: Don’t you mean continue the public hearing?
Corrie: We’ll need to continue –
Anderson: Continue the public hearing.
Corrie: It’ll (inaudible) public hearing (inaudible) --
Anderson: Did we even open it?
Bird: Yeah, but he’s up there testifying.
Gigray: You should just open it and then continue it.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: So the correct motion would be a motion to continue the public hearing until February 1st.
Bird: Second.
deWeerd: It still needs to be opened first. Doesn’t it need to be opened to continue it?
Corrie: It will be opened – continue the public hearing, it will be opened on February the 1st due to the hour. Okay. A motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Then the public hearing will be on February the 1st on Items No. 9 and 10.
(inaudible discussion)
Item 11. Request for hookup to city water and sewer on properties located on Lots 13A and 13B in Van Hees Subdivision by Randy Ware – on Linder Road approximately ¼ mile south of Franklin
Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is request for hookup to city water and sewer on properties located on Lots 13A and 13B in the Van Hees Subdivision on Linder Road approximately ¼ mile south of
Franklin Road. Okay. Shari, staff, this was a – Gary.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I received a transmittal from City Clerk Berg concerning this request. This property is located on the west side of Linder Road approximately across
the street from I think it was the last addition of the Landing Subdivision. It appears from our zoning map it’s contiguous, its frontage on Linder Road is contiguous to what was previously
annexed as part of the Landing Subdivision, I think, No. 7, which is the southerly most piece. My recommendation is that the property be annexed as part of the approval to connect to
city water and sewer which does exist in Linder Road. I think that’s all I have to say.
Corrie: Thank you. (inaudible) comments?
Bird: Do you want an annexation and everything in this, Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I think that unless it’s part of the approval, that property will not be annexed. It’ll remain as County property and we’ll just
have an enclave that will continue on in that area as the –
Corrie: They’re not requesting annexation, are they?
Smith: No, sir. The request was just to connect to city sewer and water.
Corrie: If there’s no incentive to (inaudible) Mr. Bird. Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Point of information for the Mayor and Council and maybe the Public Works Director can answer this. You have with your packet Ordinance No. 852 which the Council passed which
is certain requirements that have to be met in order for property to connect the water system outside of the city limits as well as the sewer system, and it doesn’t look to me as if
the application which is here submitted by Mr. Ware meets the requirements of that ordinance which is that in the application that they would consent to the terms and conditions required
by these sections, and then that initiates a process where the Public Works Director does an analysis about the affect of this hooking up on the system. One of the things they have
to agree to is the Council grants the application, it will include as a condition that the legal owners of the parcel will enter into an agreement for the extension of the water. In
the case of the sewer, the sewer which provides that they will agree that the ordinances apply and that it will be, in fact, if it’s annexable, that they will agree to the annexation.
I don’t see this letter including – maybe Mr. Ware is here and can further clarify that, but it just doesn’t seem like it meets the requirements of the ordinance.
Corrie: Is that you?
Ware: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Randy Ware, I live at 10464 Shady Brooke in Boise. I talked to Mr. Smith earlier today about the application, and, apparently, there
isn’t – hasn’t been one made up yet.
Smith: Correct.
Ware: So I would like to state for the record though, that I do agree to the terms and conditions of what is in this ordinance as far as anything – annexing into the city limits and
any of the other things that are in here. Basically, the application – the ordinance – the application basically addresses items A, B, C, D, E and F which are, in my opinion, only a
formality which basically states that I will agree to the terms and conditions of the agreement that we put together. All I’m trying to do is hook up to city sewer and water out there
on a couple of lots, and I think that this ordinance allows for that, but the fact that there is no application shouldn’t penalize me from doing that. This ordinance went into effect
December 7th and was in full force January 7th. You know, I’m ready to go with it, but it’s not my fault that there isn’t an application for me to fill out.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Mr. Gigray, if this were to be approved, the request, can conditions be placed that he follow up with the application for annexation and zoning?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and Councilperson deWeerd, we do have form agreements that match these requirements for property owners to sign, and then we record them.
I might note that when you remember that a water and sewer system has – there are many ordinances in place that protect your water and sewer system, and if properties located outside
of the city limits, those ordinances don’t apply. But what we do with the agreement is include those as a condition of providing water and sewer so that they do apply to the system
and the delivery of the water and the sewer so that you protect your sewer system against overloads and things that can happen that can cause problems, and you can enforce it. Secondly,
the agreement requires that if the property is annexable, quite frankly, it’s an agreement to be annexed if it’s legally possible, and in this instance, if it abuts the property, you
could proceed to annexation even because it’s considered their consent. I think what Gary is requesting in this instance that they would make an application for annexation which I think
requires a filing fee of some kind and they would initiate that application rather than the City initiating it on its own. That’s how I understand Gary’s comment. That could be included
in the order if you choose to do that. But I would say, I think these issues are important particularly what I see on the horizon of potential legislation that might require votes for
annexation of properties where the property owner is not in favor of it and if there’s a reason to – if we’re supplying water and sewer, I think you would want to do what you could to
assure that that consent has already been given, and that’s what this is designed to require. It sounds like with the applicant’s testimony here today, on
the record, that he is – we have something in the record that says he will agree to that.
Corrie: Okay. Any comments, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Gary.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, we do have an agreement for connection of property outside the city limits; I think that’s what Bill’s referring to. It does include a provision
for annexation. We do not have an application that is outlined in this ordinance. I have not developed that application yet. That’s what I related to Mr. Ware today on the telephone,
but as Bill points out, it’s my recommendation that the property be annexed as part of the provision to provide or for them to connect, and Mr. Ware’s agreeing to that. I would assume
that he would be agreeable to sign this – at least review and enter into the agreement that we have for provision of providing of service outside – for property outside the city limits,
presently outside the city limits.
Ware: Mayor, members of the Council, I would agree to that. I do have a request, though, that while this process of annexation is taking place that I be allowed to go ahead and begin
the hook-up process that is involved. Timing-wise it would be much more beneficial.
Bird: (inaudible) with that.
Corrie: Could be done (inaudible) Council wants to do it.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I mentioned to Randy on the phone today that I don’t have a problem with that proposal as long as the process continues on. If the process stalls
for any reason and it goes away, then so will the connection. We will eliminate the connection.
Corrie: You have no problem with that?
Ware: No problem with that.
Smith: Okay.
Anderson: (inaudible)
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I wanted to intervene here just so Gary could comment. My recommendation would be that in the agreement and the order we would make a requirement
that he make application for annexation and zoning into the city, and, of course, would not impede that process. The city would not pre-commit itself on an issue like that because it’s
quasi-judicial by
saying the service would be disconnected. I think that once that process gets started, it will complete itself on its own, and as long as we have a provision in there that the property
owner wouldn’t impede that process, I think that could protect us as long as Gary’s comfortable with that. See, my point is that, you know, we still have to have a fair and impartial
decision maker at some point on the annexation and zoning, and I just want to protect that on the one side in this. As long as if he turns around and sells and we have a provision in
the agreement that they won’t impede that process, it can move forward anyway.
Corrie: Mr. Smith.
Smith: Okay with me.
Corrie: All right. Then I will entertain a motion to that effect.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’ll take a stab at this. I would make a motion that we allow Mr. Randy Ware to hook up to city water and sewer on properties located on Lots 13A and 13B in the
Van Hees Subdivision on Linder Road providing that he make application to the City for annexation and zoning and does not impede that progress.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bird to approve the hook-up to city water and sewer with agreement that they make the application to the city annexation
and zoning without impeding the process of the water and sewer. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
12. Department Reports:
A. City Treasurer – Janice Smith:
Treasurer’s Report:
Corrie: Department Reports. Treasurer, is Janice still here?
Smith: Mayor and Council, Ron was asking earlier in the evening about the variance that we had, and I pulled out my notebook, a copy that was given to them in December and that shows
a variance. On the white page, it also gives you some past history also. But for the report tonight, I also typed up something in case you forgot what I, you know, as it’s been a long
night and everything, and you might have some questions later. What I wanted to go over tonight quickly was the summary that you got this month was a little bit different format because
we updated our software which they do at a regular basis, and they lost our summary (inaudible) fund, so we just did it in Excel. It just looks a little bit different than normal.
We should have it fixed by the end of the week. Okay. Another change on Number 2 there, the Idaho Power Utility expenses on all the funds are not in there because Idaho Power is doing
some changing to, I guess, like the City of Meridian on their utility billing. Anyway, if you looked in your summary on your Page 9 in the general, it’s like $10,000 short because of
the utility billing. Page 2 and 4 of the Enterprise Fund, it’s short a couple thousand, too. So we will be getting with Idaho Power to find out if this is going to be happening on
a regular basis. We may have to at year-end make an adjustment or request them to do some changes on their billing for the City for the cut-off date. We’ll get with the department
heads. I’m sure that they have notices – will be noticing it to let them know, the heads, up on what Idaho Power’s going to do for us. Then you’ll notice on the revenue, on the summary
– do you guys happen to have your statement in front of you? Looks like this. Okay. You’ll notice that the revenues are getting pretty low here. Our expenses are exceeding our revenues.
We do have some money in the bank. This is normal for this time of the year. We'll be getting our tax dollars at the end of this month or the first part of February. We may have
to pull some money out of the investments to cover January’s payroll. If you’ll notice on the – with the Fire Department, with their expenses and then also with the Enterprise when
you go back to your Enterprise, you’ll see they’re spending a lot on their projects, their capital projects that they’re working on. So by the end of this week, we’ll have some figures,
and then we have an investment committee that the Mayor was on, City Clerk, myself, and it was Charlie Rountree. I’m not sure who you appointed to take his place. Keith? Okay. So
we’ll have to get together and decide if we’re going to have to pull some out of investments. We haven’t had to do this since 1993. We’ve been operating really good, but we’ve been
spending money the last few years with the Fire Department getting – last year also with everybody getting up their hardware for the Y2K which is this fiscal year, October through December
we did a lot of that. In your packet you didn’t receive the investment report. That’s because we haven’t received the Treasurer’s Department – the State Treasury’s Report. They were
behind a month also. So as soon as we get that, you’ll get an investment report. I thought I brought a copy in here of what we had in there. Just a second. Last month there was 30
million in there. But you’ll get that breakdown on that at the end of this month. Before then. It should be within a few days. Okay. On Issue No. 5, the County Department has completed
their part, our part on the 1999 audit. The auditors are waiting for the Council members’ decision on Resolution 140. I think that was brought up a couple times and it hasn’t been
addressed in the last few years. The way we see it, Resolution 140 was binding on – I think you guys need to have an actual workshop on this, discuss it in further detail instead of
trying to make any decision on it tonight. When you decide on that, they said they’d get us the rough draft of the audits. Then I usually go over the rough draft for any corrections,
could be verbiage or some dollar figure, and that should be within a couple days, and they hope to have it in your hands by the end of this month. I
know it says in the ordinance, there is an ordinance that puts my department on the line, it should be done, can’t remember right off hand. I did pull it out, but it should be done
before now. There were some issues that they went over the latecomers with a fine-tooth comb this year, and we’ve got that pretty well done with the Bill Nichols here, with his help,
and the City Engineer, I think we’ve got it fine-tuned. That won’t have to be brought up again. We did – they appropriated so much money for the latecomers, so that wasn’t an issue,
but it was an issue up to the end of December. Between Bill and the Engineering Department, we agreed on a figure. So I guess if you have any questions on the audit, check with our
auditors. That would be Kevin Anderson. If you guys want to push them, just skip that 140, they can get that rough draft over to me. They already gave me one rough draft, and I had
some corrections, sent it back. So other than that, if you guys want to pursue it, get it done now and forget Resolution 140, but it hasn’t – on the last two years, they haven’t addressed
that.
Bird: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Janice, Resolution 140, what does that do with the P & L of the City? Why does that hold up the audit? You either – what you do with the excess money
– I want to know how much excess money I’ve got. That’s what the audit does; it tells us how we ran, how much we had left over. Resolution 140 tells us what we do with it.
Smith: Right. And –
Bird: To make the audit, I can’t see where that had a thing to do with Resolution 140.
Smith: Well, if you looked in prior audits, it was addressed as the reserve – it was as excess fund revenue. When Blucoff (sic) has taken over, they didn’t even address it, and they
noticed an error this year. The wordage, whether it be excess funds from the building fund or general, it’s – to me it’s one in the same. It’s just wordage. Here you’ve got one wordage
here and usually every city has excess – if they have excess revenue, they will decide at the end of the year or the beginning of the next year, and a Resolution can override another
Resolution.
Bird: Janice, I agree with you, but what gets me is I don’t have a thing to do with the audit of what you do.
Smith: Bill has some input on that. Bill Gigray – I’ve had – he’s been helping me with this.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the only thing I can understand, I don’t know specifically to answer your question, I would summarize or surmise that it’s probably would
be a comment usually the audits have comments in them about things that need to be done and what their recommendations are, and they would probably list Resolution 140 and the matters
related to that as a comment for proposed future action. You’d have to check with them, but that’d be my
guess. I guess maybe if they thought action was going to be taken on that, they would delete that as a comment. But I don’t know for sure. That’d be my guess.
Bird: I just have a hard time figuring out why the – I mean, this is the first year we’ve ever used anything other than revenue and taxation and stuff, and we took that money out of
the – two million out of the fund balance, so what we’ve got left over, I mean, you know, in the private world, man, you know, that’s what you look for is what’s left over at the end
of the year. That’s your problem. So why is a Resolution holding up a whole lot? That I don’t understand.
Smith: Well, the way we see it worded in the Accounting Department, it says all excess funds need to – would go into the building reserve fund, but then you have some restricted funds
which, of course, are the park impact fees, we know those are restricted, and also the fire truck funds. But then, also, the Parks Department has capital projects that they – that he
doesn’t spend, and those should go to that building reserve fund, but then he also wants to take that and re-budget it which he has done on some, but when it’s put into the building
reserve fund, it’s there. It’s not – just because some of the Department Heads think that since they didn’t spend it, well, I still have this from last year. I can spend it again.
But it’s not. It has gone to the building reserve fund by that Resolution.
Bird: Yeah. You wouldn’t let Bill and I do it at the end of the year last year. We wanted to do something and you told us no. That’s why I’m saying that. You know, you come to the
end, if you’re $100 over after you do your P & L, which is your audit, what you do with that $100 whether you give it to your Board of Directors or what you do with it doesn’t have anything
to do with the audit.
Smith: Yeah.
Bird: That’s why I’m really wondering why Resolution 140 is holding up the whole audit.
Smith: Well, January 6th there were two other things that were holding it up, too, but as of January 7th, the only thing left was Resolution 140. He came to me to explain, Kevin Anderson,
I guess, got the dates wrong. He wanted to help interpret it the way he is an auditor in the accounting field interprets it. I will tell him just put it on our management letter of
what they would like us to get cleaned up.
Bird: You know, Janice –
Smith: He’s got it all done other than –
Bird: -- this is certainly no reflection on any people or anything. We pass an ordinance to the citizens of this – taxpayers of this community. Because of a
simple fact that it was four and five years of getting audits before. Two years ago, when Ron and I came on here, we said this is not going to happen anymore. You have to do it in
the private world, why can’t you do it in the public world? You’ve got a date in the private, we’ve got a date to meet here. These people are very good, but I – maybe I’m thick-headed,
and I’m probably not understanding, but I can’t see how a Resolution that deals with profit holds up an audit.
Smith: With an ordinance that you created on having the audit complete by January –
Bird: Fifteenth.
Smith: -- is making us tow the line which we have done.
Bird: And you’ve done a good job.
Smith: All of a sudden – I’ll get on them. I’ll tell them to fax it over tomorrow and I’ll review it.
Bird: If you can’t get anything, ask the Mayor to call. I mean, he should have some power with them. Ask the Mayor to call.
Corrie: Will do.
Smith: Yeah, because to me, an ordinance overrides a Resolution.
Bird: And a Resolution, that Resolution 140 is profit money. It doesn’t have a thing to do with your P & L.
Smith: Yeah. It’s capital improvement.
Bird: But it’s money that’s in excess that you’ve made that year. You want to see a whole bunch of it. If you have a loss, you’re not going to be in business very long. But that
Resolution 140 deals with profit; profit is what you determine out of your audit. Now, tell me why that stops it.
deWeerd: Don’t shoot the messenger, Keith.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Before Keith has a heart attack, I would like to maybe request at our Strategic Planning Meeting that Janice come and explain to me, when we divided this money up and took
that two million dollars in December and divided that
amongst the different departments and their capital expenditures, we’d had it down to $25,000 was all that was left as far as fudge money, and I’m really concerned and embarrassed to
hear that there was $700 or $814,000, so I would like for you to explain to me at that Strategic Planning Meeting and maybe take a little more time and go through the numbers how we
got that much of a variance, and if there is that much of a variance then maybe we need to look at some of the other programs that we didn’t fund this year and then maybe take some time
and explain that latecomers in more detail, too, because the last thing I understood, we were going to have to be paying people back $200,000, and I don’t know what’s happened with that.
I would like to have you spend more time, and if it takes legal counsel and Gary to help explain that, I’d like to have more explanation. Not here tonight, but where we can go over
those numbers.
Smith: And when is the next Strategic Planning Session?
Bird: January 25th, Janice.
Smith: Okay. That’d be great. If you do look on that pink slip, Budget in 1998-99, the capital outlay at that time was like – actually, that was the budget amount; the $2,435,000
and when you – to me as a scenario, when you told everybody no capital outlay, nobody gets any capital outlay, we will give $2,000,000 in capital outlay, well there was more than $2,000,000
they had budgeted for capital outlay. When you go three percent of the other expenses meaning the personnel and operating, that really went – made it go way down. I can give you some
spreadsheets on that.
Anderson: If you explain that in more detail next week, I’d appreciate it.
Smith: But I thought this might help with also the new Council members coming on. We will give them a notebook.
deWeerd: I think we’re going to have to meet prior to the meeting so you can probably give us a heads-up on what we’re going to know next week.
Smith: I’ll give you some samples of what the Council got first when all the departments that we want, we want, we want, and then (inaudible) you get, you get, you get. So I've got
all those spreadsheets, and I’ll pull those together and try not to make it so cumbersome as many sheets they got throughout the budget year.
deWeerd: Thank you.
12. Department Reports:
Police Chief – Bill Gordon
1. Local veterinarians selling dog licenses:
Corrie: Okay. Bill Gordon.
Gordon: This will be quick. Mayor and Council, what this is is agreements with out local veterinarians to sell our dog licenses, and it’s basically just giving them the authority to
do it and explains how they have to get the money back to us. It needs to be signed yearly by the Mayor and the City Clerk. I think it deals with three or four of our veterinarians.
Since we started doing that, our dog licenses just quadrupled, so it was a way for us to get those licenses out to more people.
Bird: Is it a generic, all four of them in one or do we have to do it individually?
Gordon: They’re all individual agreements with each veterinarian.
Corrie: Just move them all in one motion.
Bird: That’s what I was asking.
Gordon: But they’ve all been signed by the veterinarians already.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we enter into the agreement with the veterinarians regarding selling our dog licenses through the Police Department and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the license agreements of the veterinarians signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk approved. Any further discussion? All those
in favor of the motion say aye.
Bird: Don’t agreements have to be roll-call?
Corrie: I’m sorry. We can do that roll-call.
Roll-call vote: Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. deWeerd, aye; Mr. Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
12. Department Reports:
Mayor Robert Corrie:
1. Planning and Zoning Commission Appointment:
Corrie: Okay. On mine I’ve got three things; appointments, recommend to the City Council with your looking and approval on the Planning and Zoning appointment. These were sent to
the Director of Planning and Zoning. They came back with the name of Sally Norton. You have her application here. He and I both agree this is probably the one, the best one we’ve
had of the group. So I asked him if he wanted me to present that, and he said yes, so I am presenting Sally Norton as the Planning and Zoning Commissioner vacancy.
Anderson: How many applicants were there?
Corrie: I think there was 11 total.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: I move that we approve your recommendation of Sally Norton as the new Planning and Zoning Commission appointment.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve Sally Norton as a new Planning and Zoning Commissioner on the vacancy. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
12. Department Reports:
Mayor Robert Corrie:
Parks and Recreation Committee Appointment:
Corrie: Okay. The next one is the appointment of a Parks and Recreation Commission appointment. The Parks and Rec Committee put three names out. Edmond Fong, Debbie Watkins and Mark
Suderman. They – out of those three, the Edmond Fong has got the most votes, I guess, and that’s the one that I’m presenting to the Council for your edification and also approval.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve your appointment of Ed Fong to the Parks and Recreation Committee.
deWeerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Mr. Edmond Fong for the appointment to the Parks and Rec Committee. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of
the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Department Reports:
Mayor Robert Corrie:
COMPASS Representative from City Council:
Corrie: The other one, COMPASS Representative from City Council. I talked to Shari, and we also talked to someone tonight with Ron Anderson, and they said they would be willing to
be the COMPASS Representative – (inaudible) Mayor of each city is on that, and then we have to have one as a representative and the other as an alternate. Let me back off and you guys
can fight it out.
Bird: Who did you say it was, Mayor?
Anderson: He said Shari, but I think he meant –
Corrie: I’m sorry. Tammy and Ron.
Bird: Well, they agreed upon it, so, Tammy is the one and Ron’s the alternate.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion for that.
Bird: I move that Tammy deWeerd represent us on COMPASS with Ron Anderson as our alternate.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded Tammy representative and Ron Anderson as alternate in case one of the two of us can’t be there. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, Tammy. I’ll get hold of COMPASS
Department Reports:
City Attorney – Bill Gigray:
Police Building Site Negotiations Report:
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, on my report, first item that’s listed concerns the negotiations for the site of the proposed new police station. As a result of the discussions
and the information that was provided to me, I have prepared for your consideration a Resolution which would amend Resolution 277 which was your previous authorization to make the $805,000
offer on the property. I’ve tried to set forth in the Findings the concerns of – has concerning this property as well as setting out in the various sections here the conditions of the
offer. Where we are is we make – the City made an offer on the property, the seller came back with an addendum to that offer which basically had some provisions that would include the
City as a co-developer of this 20-acre parcel of which the 10 acres that the City is interested in would come out of. We received recommendations from Gary Smith, the Public Works Director,
concerning some environmental issues with that site which are just a due-diligence type of issue. Then, concerns with regards to how to address the addendum. The specific counter offer
here would be that we would propose a closing of April 10th. That’s a Monday and that would follow the first Tuesday in April of this year that we would obtain or require that the seller
obtain and/or the seller pay for the transactional screen, environmental site assessment update which the information received by Gary Smith and the advice was that that should be updated
because I think the screen that you have was done in ’98; that the seller at their expense would make application from Ada County to obtain an administrative lot split since the parcel
that you are making the offer on is not a legal parcel at this point in time, and the idea of that would be that the Ada County could process that application quicker than the City.
At the same time, the seller make application to the City for annexation and zoning of the property as an R-8. The R-8 zone will allow public use, the public use would, of course,
have to come in as a conditional use after zoning. The advantage of an R-8 zone rather than the other zone which is referenced here is that L-O zone which would be a permitted public
use is that that may propose some Comp Plan problems, and we don’t have that problem with an R-8 zone. There was a concern about being able to use the property, and that is what Item
4 on Page 3 of this Resolution is designed to address, and that is that the seller would agree to complete the infrastructure for improvements to the west of the property including the
construction of the road, sewer, water, power, cable, gas and telephone to the subject property and stub in the cul-de-sac as access to this property within one year of the date of closing.
Further, the seller would agree to do the improvements and the construction of the road across the northern portion of the property being purchased which is 1,013 feet and then would
do the
necessary road and curb cuts, sidewalks, water and sewer, et cetera, to City specifications, and that the City would agree to pay the seller an amount not greater than $152,000 within
30 days of final completion of that roadway and the infrastructure as provided. So this is for your consideration. I have been contacted by Dave Williams who is the co-realtor here
and have advised him that this matter is before you for your consideration. I think we faxed him a copy of this proposed resolution.
Bird: They’ve got to still accept it, of course.
Gigray: Absolutely.
Bird: This is – Bill, I’ve got one question. I thought we said we were going to offer on the $152,000 to pay one-half of the costs not to exceed $152,000.
: That’s correct.
Gigray: Well, we can very easily pay – I’m reading the word “pay” here. I mean, we could very easily include in here that –
Bird: That way, if it comes out, you know, it might only be 10 or 12, it might be $2,000 or something. We might as well have the $2,000 to put into our building or whatever. You know,
that one-half of the costs not to exceed $152,000. At 1,015 lineal feet, depending on location of the – I don’t know how the utilities are going on. A couple contractors I talked to
said that you could probably get it between $270,000 and $280,000 so that would be quite a savings.
Corrie: We just need to have (inaudible)
Bird: One-half not to exceed $152,000. That is – I mean, I’m just one guy. Whatever you guys think.
Gigray: I think you’re probably right.
Corrie: (inaudible) Do we need to do the Resolution tonight so that they can have that (inaudible)?
Gigray: You could include in your motion that we would prepare a revision of Condition 5 to include and specify that the City’s agreement to pay is for only one-half of the cost of
the installation.
Bird: What is Resolution No. (inaudible) Will? Beg your pardon?
Berg: 286. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Just a typo referring to Dee Jay Subdivision. I believe it’s D-E-E J-A-Y that’s you’re referring to just so –
*** End of Side 5 ***
-- I don’t know if it’s platted yet or not. Do you remember if Dee Jay is a platted subdivision?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, it’s not platted yet; that is, it’s not a recorded plat yet. The development plans have been approved for the extension of the sewer and the water.
I don’t believe it’s been recorded yet, though.
Gigray: What is its correct name? I’m sorry.
Bird: D-E-E J-A-Y.
Gigray: Is it all caps? Oh. I see. Unfortunately, I had a secretary named D.J. and she spelled it this way. So I may have subliminally put her in the subdivision.
Bird: We’re just glad to see this once in awhile so we know you’re human.
Gigray: Well, you know that every time you see that.
deWeerd: So on No. 5, you’re going to put one-half of the roadway.
Bird: Not to exceed $152,000. Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve Resolution No. 286 with the changing on Item 4 to D-E-E, J-A-Y Subdivision and also on Item No. 5, the last sentence
the City shall agree to pay to seller one-half of the amount of the roadway not to exceed $152,000 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second. Thousand.
Bird: Yeah. $152,000.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Resolution No. 286. All those in favor –
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: On Item No. 5, wouldn’t that be, and the second sentence put “one-half of the necessary roadway” and then – because you need to include the infrastructure. Is that correct?
Bird: (inaudible)
deWeerd: Instead of one-half there?
Bird: He has to do the whole thing, and then down here we agree to pay half not to exceed $152,000.
deWeerd: Yeah, but you were putting the roadway in here. Wouldn’t it –
Bird: No. It just – the roadway comes in here. He’s got to put that whole roadway in, and we agree – and the utility stuff – we agree to pay half of it not to exceed $152,000. He’s
got to put it I, not us.
deWeerd: Right.
Gigray: The way I would anticipate limiting this so it doesn’t get out of control depending on what their subdivision plans are that it would just be in that 1,013-foot roadway, and
that’s where stubbing and curbing would be. Now, if for some reason it would appear necessary to change this, it would provide savings all the way around, they could approach us or
us them about amending this agreement later on to accommodate that. But at this point, the only thing I’m aware of that they’re proposing to do and requiring is to include a dedication,
and in this instance, we would require them to include it in their lot split of the northern 29 feet of this property which would anticipate a road going clear across it east to west.
Corrie: Thank you. All right. Okay. Roll-call vote on Resolution.
Roll-call vote: Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mrs. deWeerd, aye; Mr. Bird, aye; Mr. Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Thank you, Bill. Are you doing Gary’s too?
Department Reports:
City Attorney – Bill Gigray
2. Development Agreements for Woodbridge Community, LLC:
Gigray: No. The only thing I wanted to know was whether or not you wanted to entertain approving the new development agreements that were subject to the Woodbridge applications which
we’ve now completed the process on the Findings and Conclusions. They have submitted a Development Agreement for the large parcel which is where the development is going to occur, I
think is the Snorting Bull Development Agreement, and the other Agreement is the Woodbridge Community, LLC, Agreement which is the small parcel and that Agreement, basically, the Development
Agreement just requires a conditional
use permit on anything that they do there. I think those are both in, are they not? Both those Development Agreements?
Bird: This is what we (inaudible) going to do at the end.
Berg: Both signed?
Gigray: Yes.
Berg: Yes.
Bird: Okay. Now that was for Woodbridge and which other one, Bill?
Gigray: They’re both Woodbridge. Remember, Woodbridge had two parcels. One small one that I think was necessary in order to make the large one contiguous to the City.
Bird: Do we need to make two motions or one?
Gigray: You could just make a motion to approve two separate resolutions to authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to sign, the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: On the Development Agreements.
Gigray: On these Development Agreements, and you could do that in one motion then the records would show you passed them both at one time.
Bird: What are the resolution numbers? 287 and 288?
Berg: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Resolutions 287 and 288 regarding the Development Agreement with Woodbridge Community, LLC.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Resolution Nos. 287 and 288, the Woodbridge Community, LLC. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I guess I should have done a roll-call. Gary.
Department Reports:
City Engineer – Gary Smith:
Mike Luke request to connect to city sewer:
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: On January the 10th, I talked to a Mr. Mike Luke who lives in the County at 1867 Country Terrace Way. That’s a subdivision between Meridian Greens on its east side, Running
Brook Estates on its south and west side for most of Country Terrace. Mr. Luke is having septic tank problems. All of those lots in Country Terrace Subdivision were developed on septic
tanks for their sewage treatment. They have a community well to serve them with domestic water. At the time the subdivision was developed in 1977, the developer installed a dry sewer
line in the street. The sewer line grades to the south. When Running Brook Estates was developed, I required the developer to extend the sewer line up the hill and connect to the sewer
line that was in the – is in the Country Terrace Subdivision. Mr. Luke’s septic tank, I should say drain field is failing. The Central District Health wants him to connect to the sewer
line that is in the street in front of his house. I have ascertained through the Wastewater Department that we have inspected the sewer line with a television camera as part of our
maintenance of our system. I’m not quite sure why they got involved in that county sub, but, nevertheless, they did go up through the line. Service lines were installed out of the
main line to each of the lots in the subdivision at the time it was built, and when I connect – when I had the Running Brook developer connect to this line, I instructed them to put
a plug in the line at the downstream line of the Country Terrace Subdivision so we didn’t receive anything from them inadvertently. Mr. Luke has made a request to you for approval to
connect to the City. There are a couple problems with this. Number one, we don’t own the sewer line in the street. It’s a county subdivision. I believe the sewer line belongs to
the homeowners. I don’t know who else it would belong to. Not us. He does have a problem right now with his septic tank and drain field. It’s overflowing, as he said, into the gutter
out of the drain field, so we’ve got a health problem there. The Mr. Rooter or Master Rooter, Roto Rooter, I don’t know who it is, mentioned to this Mr. Luke that there were four or
five other people in the subdivision that were having similar problems. I don’t know the extent of that. Anyway, Mr. Luke is asking for permission to connect to the city sewer.
Bird: Gary, what do we do about if it’s not our sewer line? It hooks into our main line.
Smith: It’s connected. I had it connected at the time because that’s the only place it could flow.
Bird: We could still charge hook-up fee, couldn’t we?
Smith: Oh, yes.
deWeerd: Why aren’t we asking them to annex? Their contiguous –
Smith: They’re contiguous. That’s the other part of my question was that, and I talked to him about that, Mr. Luke about that, and he said that these folks have always been against
annexing to the City of Meridian. They didn’t want anything to do with us. Well, now we’ve got something that they need, and I asked him the question when I had him on the telephone
what the attitude within the subdivision was toward annexing, and he said, well, it might be 50-50. So it’s gone up significantly from where it was because it was nothing. Again, it’s
a sewer issue, and I think Mr. Luke’s got a serious problem here, but – he’s asking for some help on this. On the other hand, I think we need to maintain that carrot, so to speak, that
we have with the sewer and the rest of the subdivision, and I think we need to let them know that this is a – we have an agreement to provide sewage or sewer, accept sewer outside our
city limits that we have used in the past for these other people that have requested the service, and this should not be any different than what we’ve done in the past. That agreement
says that, I paraphrase it, but it’s something to the effect if you’re annexable you will annex.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess the logical question is what’s the next step. Do we tell this homeowner to go drum up support from his neighbors or is that staff’s doing or do we take them one at
a time? It would be much more feasible to just annex the whole subdivision and have them dedicate that line to us.
Smith: We’re going to have to – well, to answer your question, Councilman, in the order that you presented it, this fellow’s about three lots from the end of the road, the cul-de-sac
where they connect to our sewer system. So, in order to get him into the City, the first three lots – well, I guess this in effect, his lot does back up to Running Brook, too, so he
could annex – we could annex him just on that basis. The one lot. But we do have to have the homeowners turn that sewer line over to us, I think, unless they want to maintain it.
I guess they could do that, too. It’s their sewer line as I see it.
Bird: But we would still get the hook-up fees.
Smith: Yes.
Smith: Well, we’d go up to the next manhole and block it off there, but that would still allow half a dozen lots access to the sewer without us knowing it.
Corrie: Would you and your staff go explain that to the homeowners or would you rely on Mr. Luke to try to spread the word in his neighborhood about annexation?
Smith: We could certainly – I’m somewhat familiar with those people out there because of the community well that they have and the problems that they’ve had getting access, maintaining
access to that well through Running Brook. I’ve talked to several of those folks before. We could certainly do that; explain the process to them and the situation.
Bird: Only problem is he’s got one heck of a problem right now.
Smith: He does. He’s got a big problem right now. He’s pumping his septic tank almost every week.
Bird: And it’s not always doing the job.
Anderson: So he may help you knock on doors.
Smith: Yes.
Anderson: I guess that’d be my thought is to get us some type of feedback on what the subdivision wants to do.
Corrie: Time is an essence to him so you (inaudible) two or three. That’s Council’s choice.
deWeerd: Can you do the same thing that we did earlier is allow him to hook up as long as they don’t impede the process of annexation?
Corrie: Well, (inaudible) lines –
Anderson: We’ve got that line problem. We don’t own the lines.
deWeerd: I mean for the whole subdivision to do it.
Smith: We don’t own the line. He could hook it up; all we have to do – (inaudible) go-ahead to go into our main trunk and take off. They’re going to have to maintain it there, right,
Gary? What about water if we annex it? Is their well – they’ve got a well, but do we take it over?
Smith: No.
Bird: We leave it out there and they run it themselves, too?
Smith: Well –
Bird: Is that City policy?
Smith: No.
Bird: That’s what I was going to say. It isn’t City policy.
Smith: If we annexed, the water lines that they have within the subdivision would need to be connected to our system. I don’t know – the well that they have, I don’t know anything
about it. It’s not a deep well, they’ve had some problems with it but not enough to have them knock on our door asking for water.
Anderson: But that’s not really a big issue. They have existing lines run already so we’d just cap their well and tie into our City water.
Smith: Yes. Again, we’d be assuming their system for operation and maintenance if the whole subdivision was annexed.
Corrie: Probably in the long run, it’s better for them. Costs a little money (inaudible) annex it.
Smith: Yes. I guess right now, Mr. Luke’s got a bigger problem. He’s not very far from where we can connect it to their line. I guess I’d like to see some way for him to connect
and utilize the sewer, get out of his septic tank and drain field problem; on the other hand, we need to maintain a little bit of a lever over the subdivision itself. If we’re going
to serve one person, let’s –
Corrie: May be 20 years (inaudible) –
Smith: Yeah. It’s a difficult situation.
Anderson: So is two weeks enough time? That’s not going to make or break him, but would that give you enough time to get some feedback for us so that we know what way the rest of the
homeowners are going?
Smith: You bet. I’ll contact him and I’ll contact the president. I know another fellow that lives out there, too, that I can contact so I can get some kind of a feedback from them
as to how they feel about annexation. The other thing that – I’ll go ahead and do that. The other thing I just wanted to plant a seed tonight is development of property outside in
the county. These sewer lines that we’re building on the no-name trunk, which, by the way, I found out is located on the White Drain.
: So it can be the (inaudible)?
Smith: So – it can be the White – pardon me? I didn’t catch the end of that one.
: The White Brown Line.
Smith: The White Brown Line. But, anyway, I think we need to think about how the development should take place up there in those areas because if we don’t maintain city property or
city boundaries out there, then we’re going to lose all the building permits to Ada County like we’re doing in Vienna Woods for example, and the park impact fees. Because today I had
a visit from Ramon Yorgenson (sic) and he’s talking about wanting to extend the line on up Ten Mile Road to the north slew and to the east because he’s looking at 120 acres up there
that he wants to develop, build and develop. Now all of a sudden we’re almost out to Chinden.
Bird: We are out to Chinden if we go with Brighton.
Smith: And Brighton and I can’t remember the farmer’s name. Janicek.
Bird: Janicek.
deWeerd: I sure hope we’re seeing green space in there. Let’s get that Landscape Ordinance on the (inaudible).
McCandless: That’s not going to help us if it’s developed in the county.
Bird: I’m with Gary, though. Let’s make sure we get the building and the park fees and all this kind of stuff and not let the county have it and we take – and then we come in and take
it. We get the hook-up fees.
Smith: But the only way we can do it is to annex as we go.
Bird: I think that –
Smith: It has to be contiguous.
Bird: -- (inaudible) but we’ve got to be ready to get our services (inaudible).
Smith: Well, services will be there. They’ll be there before the city limits are.
deWeerd: Well, with all of this coming up, what needs to be done to make sure that we get those impact fees?
Stiles: The Parks Director needs to amend that Impact Fee Ordinance to meet current code requirements. Has to have a capital improvement program in place
for the parks and has to go to the Ada County Commissioners to get that approved so they will impose those impact fees in the county. Boise City is now requesting – Boise City already
has the agreement with them. They just have requested the 10 percent increase in the park impact fees.
deWeerd: Mayor Corrie.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Who is supposed to tell Tom to be doing this because I know Shari and I have been talking to him about this until we’re blue in the face. How do we get our Parks Director
to do this?
Anderson: Well, that’s your new job.
deWeerd: (inaudible)
Corrie: Sit down and have a chat.
deWeerd: Okay. We have to, especially if there’s a number of developments that want in, we do not want to lose the impact fees on those.
Corrie: We need to have an impact fee committee hearing (inaudible) thought about that (inaudible)
Bird: (inaudible) if you and the Clerk will get together and make a list of all the Committees we’ve got within the City and who’s on it, I’d appreciate that.
Corrie: It’s being done as we talk.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Smith: I’ll contact Mr. Luke. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. It’s 10 after 12:00. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 10 after 12:00. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:10 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK