HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 06-26Meridian City Council Meeting June 26, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday June 26, 2001 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, and Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Janice Smith, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Ken Bowers, and Shari Stiles.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: 6:33, I’m going to call the City Council meeting regular agenda for Tuesday June 26, 2001. Roll call attendance Mr. Berg.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Item No. 2 on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Any corrections to the printed agenda that we have in front of us? Hearing none –
Bird: Well, I don’t know (inaudible). No, we don’t.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion that we approve the agenda then.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the agenda as adopted. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 24, 2001, City Council Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of May 1, 2001, City Council Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of May 8, 2001, City Council Workshop:
D. Approve minutes of May 15, 2001, City Council Meeting:
E. Approve minutes of May 16, 2001, Joint City Council / Fire Meeting:
F. Approve minutes of May 23, 2001, City Council Meeting:
G. Approve minutes of May 29, 2001, Joint City Council / Planning and Zoning Meeting:
Corrie: Item No. 3 is the consent agenda. We have items A through G. Any corrections or alterations to any of the consent agenda?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the consent agenda as approved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the consent agenda as stated. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. City Treasurer – Janice Smith / Finance Director – Stacy Kilchenmann:
1. Treasurer’s Report:
2. Disposal of Surplus Property:
Corrie: Department reports. Under item 4A, city treasurer, Janice Smith finance director Stacy Kilchenmann. Item 1, treasurers report.
Kilchenmann: Mayor, Members of the Council. I’m going to go ahead and go first and push Janice over to the side. In front of you, you’ll see a big packet that is your budget base that
we talked about. What we’ve done is we’ve worked with each department head and we’ve gone through every division in every department and established the base. If you remember, we talked
about that would be our starting point. We have divided some of the departments, broken them down by divisions. I started to copy that and give it to you. This packet got so huge we
decided to just give you summaries. If you want the detail, it’s available. We based this base, we looked at 2 years worth of expenditures, actual expenditure by expenditure, transaction
by transaction. Then we worked
with the department heads to see if there were any recurring costs that we needed to take into consideration. For example, we know that utilities are going to go up so we took account
of that. We also took out any expenses that we knew would not reoccur, much to Shari’s dismay. For example, the money in there for the Comprehensive Plan, we took it out again. Janice
went through and she did the revenue projections. You’ll find a summary sheet before each department. It has the revenue projection minus the budget base. That is the money that you
should have available for enhancements and personnel increases and capital outlay, which are not included in here yet. That’s the next thing we’ll prepare for you. If you could take
this and look at it. Any questions you have, please call me because we have lots of detail to back this up and I’m sure you’ll have questions when you look at it. I have a brief summary
of some the key items for each department, or changes on the top. Then I have the accounting organizational structure. Then I have the revenues. Then we have the back up detail. I think
it’s a little different format than you’ve had before because the first column is a 2002 base budget. The second is your current budget for this year. Then we have the current actual
and then we have a projection for actual. Then we have the prior year’s budget. That gives you some history of a complete year of expenditures. Are there any questions on that?
Bird: It looks good Stacy.
Anderson: Would it be possible to get the more detailed –
Kilchenmann: Yes.
Anderson: -- and put them like in a three ring binder then?
Kilchenmann: We are going to put this in a budget book for you like we used to put it in a binder for you. We’re going to work on that next week. I can give you the detail right now
if you want it immediately.
Bird: If you’d put it in my box, I’d appreciate it.
Kilchenmann: Okay.
Anderson: It would be fine with me if when you get the book, if you’d put the detail in there. What I’d like to have is the detail.
Kilchenmann: We’ll also give you the detail of each employee’s salary because I didn’t give that to you but we have that. It’ll be their current salary and then adjusted if we know that
they’re going to move to the step or get a promotion and a 3 percent COLA increase. In here, you’ll find a memo from Pauline explaining how she came up with the 3 percent. The next thing
is, did everybody bring their financial statements? I did some graphs on the investments. These are just
examples of things we can do for you to look at. They’re in color so they should standout.
De Weerd: They’re very nice.
Kilchenmann: I’m just going to go through these really quickly. Anything that you want to see, we can do. These are just examples to get you thinking of things you might want to see.
The first one is investment income. It’s just a trend for the current year of the yield. The yield for Buffington is net of their fee. So, all the yields that are shown are net of their
fee. Then there’s a comparative investment balance for last year and the current year. Just so you can see how those balances change. The second page is the long-term investment portfolio
distributions so you can see the different types of investments we have and the percentage of our portfolio. Then another graphical representation of the net yield by investment type.
Then our long-term investment balances by fund. Those are just our long-term investments. If you’d look at those and anything else that you think that you’d like to see let me know and
we can graph it. What we’re planning to do is start doing cash projections and start investing by maturity. So, we’re going to figure out how much cash we need so we can push more of
our investments into longer term, higher yield. I talked to Bruce Moore about that. As soon as we get the budget set for this year, we’ll do the cash projection then he’ll work with
me to time out the investments. So, we might be able to edge a little more yield out of that. In the short term, I think we can move some of the money that we have in the real liquid,
the cash and money market. We can probably start pushing that out a little further. We’ll meet with the investment committee and work on that. The final thing is, in your packet is the
final disposal of surplus property procedure for you to look at. If that’s okay, it can be made into,-- I guess it needs to be made into a resolution.
(inaudible discussion)
Kilchenmann: Are there any more questions for, or any questions for me? Janice is just going to talk briefly about what revenue we’re expecting in property tax.
J. Smith: Thank you Stacy and Mayor and Council Members. Our next property tax will be coming in the end of July and it’s projected at about 1.8 million. That should get the city through,
the general fund through the next 4 months of our fiscal year. We still have some capitol projects in the police and the parks that aren’t, will probably be carried over I’m sure. With
the Superintendent had projected their capital, 4 moths ago, he projected their capital projects would be further along by June. We expected to pull money out of our investments by now,
which we haven’t. Now we have enough cash flow. We won’t need to get into an investment. The financial director will be going over those and investing those in longer term. Some of these
capital projects will also need to be carried over for the next fiscal year but it’s too soon to forecast what the carryover will be at this time. That’s all I have.
Bird: Thank you, Janice.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before we move off this I would like to make a motion that we instruct Mr. Nichols to draw up a resolution regarding the disposal of the surplus property and bring it forward on
the agenda at your convenience,
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the resolution for the disposal of surplus property. A discussion, 2 things. Has the Council read all the procedures
and agree with that?
Bird: Yes.
McCandless: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just had a question. I know there’s some legal statutes regarding the disposal of property. Has the city attorney reviewed all this to make sure this meets all those guidelines?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, Members of the Council. I have reviewed the policy. I believe it meets the spirit and the letter of the statute with regard to the surplus disposal.
Corrie: That answers my question. When do you think you’ll have it? By the 3rd or are we looking at the 17th?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I would suggest we do the 17th just because I know that Marlene’s still trying real hard to get the findings and fact out that would need
to be on the agenda for the 3rd on the consent agenda. So, we’re trying pretty hard to get those things pounded out and I don’t want to throw this in the mix when she’s doing that.
Corrie: All right. Then I’ll place the resolution for adoption on the agenda for the 7-17-01. Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: We need to vote on the motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
B. City Engineer – Gary Smith:
1. Discussion of Agreement for Professional Services with Ed Squires, RPG at Hydro Logic, Inc. to review and organize water rights for drinking water:
Corrie: Okay. Engineer, Gary Smith.
G. Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. The first item I have is an agreement, a proposed agreement with Ed Squires with Hydro Logic Incorporated to review and organize our water rights
for our drinking water. This is in conjunction with the Snake River Adjudication process. We’re just getting an inventory of all of our wells and all of our water rights that we’ve applied
for and whether or not they’ve been finally licensed with proof of beneficial use. Ed Squires is the hydro-geologist that has been working with us on development of all of our wells.
He outlined in a one-page proposal 3 items that he would propose to do for an estimated cost of $20,000. We have budgeted the money in this year’s water department’s budget for that
work. So, I would request your approval of Ed Squires’ proposal. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Council questions for Gary? Okay. The request of Gary would be to the total estimate of $20,000 would be awarded to Ed Squires at Brian Cavanaugh to prepare the water rights
proposal.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make the motion, Gary, Hydro Logic is who it’s actually with, isn’t it?
G. Smith: Yes. Hydro Logic Incorporated is the company name.
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor. I would move that we accept the proposal from Hydro Logic Incorporated for municipal water rights proposal not to exceed $20,000 and for the Mayor to sign and
the clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to approve the request of Gary Smith on the $20,000 Hydro Logic Inc. costs. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. Autumn Faire Subdivision – City Well Lot Land Lease Agreement:
Gary: Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council. The second item I have is an agreement for the City of Meridian to lease a municipal well lot from the developers of the Autumn Faire subdivision.
Their name is Gem Star Properties LLC. This parcel of ground is located near the intersection of Ustick Road and Black Cat Road, to the west side and will be at a future date part of
a plat, a final plat for Autumn Faire Subdivision. It’s not included in the platting of phase No. 1 or No.2 but it is a lot shown in the Preliminary Plat that has been approved by Council.
DEQ requires I have an ownership of sorts in this land on which a well is located without a plat, we cannot acquire legal right to the land because it would be an illegal split. So,
we’re going into this land lease agreement. The same thing that we did with Bear Creek for well No. 22. Then when it becomes a recorded subdivision they’ll transfer ownership to us by
deeding the lot that’s recorded for that well site.
Corrie: Any questions of Gary?
Bird: (inaudible).
Anderson: What article in this contract allows us to do that?
Corrie: I guess that would be the attorney’s question.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, allow us to do what part of it?
Anderson: To buy the lot or get the land donated to us? I mean, what would keep them from changing their mind in the mean time and then wanting, once we put a well on there and then
them wanting to set the price on the lot at something different?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson. I believe that in the conditions of the development agreement and the Preliminary Plat approval required that they provide a well lot.
Anderson: So, we’re not going to build on it before we get that land deeded to us then?
Nichols: I think we are. I think we have to develop a well in order to get the stuff online and that’s what we’ve done in other places before, is acquired a lease interest. Haven’t
we Gary? I know we did that in Bear Creek, right?
Anderson: So, would that cause any problems if something happened where this developer sold it to somebody else? Or this didn’t develop then we’ve got a well sitting on a piece of
land –
Nichols: No. We’ve got, I think we’ve got it pretty well tied down. I think it was even on the plat, it shows the well lot, doesn’t Gary?
G. Smith: Yes it does. It shows it on the Preliminary Plat.
(inaudible discussion)
G. Smith: There’s also a section in this agreement where the Lessee, the City of Meridian, can renew the lease at our option for 9 separate 10 year periods. You know, if something happened
to where that property was not developed, something happened to the developer and he stopped development on the project. Then we could continue to have this lease for 9 more 10-year
periods after which time that well would probably be discarded or abandoned I would think. Thank you. Good question. I appreciate that.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the lease agreement for well lot with Gem Star Properties LLC for $10 per year commencing April 1, 2001 and run through April 30, 2010 for the Mayor to sign
and the clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the city well lot lease agreement with Autumn Faire subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. Well No. 21 Pumping Facilities – Bid Results:
G. Smith: Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council. The last item I have is the result of a bid opening for the construction of pumping facilities for well No. 21. Well No.
21 is located near the water tower off Water Tower Way. In fact it’s in the park property just east of the, -- it’s part of the staging area for the speedway. We had 3 bidders. Irminger
Construction out of Boise. Riverside Incorporated from Parma and JC Constructors out of Meridian. The results of the 3 bids are shown on the memo that Brad Watson put together for you.
Irminger Construction is the low bidder at $213,557.00. Irminger built pumphouse No. 17, 18 and 19 and did a great job for us. As you can seem the bids were very close. Riverside is
the, they drilled the well and they’re also branching out into the general construction area. JC Constructors did some work recently for us at the wastewater treatment plant on the headworks
project. They did an excellent job there. We felt really good about receiving these 3 bids and the closeness of the bids. Public Works’ recommendation would be to accept the bid from
Irminger Construction in the amount of $213557 to authorize Mayor Corrie to sign and City Clerk to attest. Do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we award the contract for well No. 21 to Irminger Construction in the amount of $213,557 and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve well No. 21 pumping facilities (inaudible) results. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Gary, I noticed on here it says stand by generator set. This doesn’t include a stand by generator? It’s just setting one that we would buy separate?
G. Smith: No. That is a generator. The generator is included. I’m not sure what the set means. I know they’re on 2 of them but it would be installed. It’s a generator installed.
Anderson: Okay.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, (inaudible) all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
G. Smith: Thank you Mayor. Thank you Council. Mayor Corrie when you get to the next item on the flood plane I’d like to have a little discussion in that.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Item 5. Ordinance No. : Ordinance amending 10-6-5.B.1 and 10-6-5.C.2 Flood Damage Prevention and Repealing Chapter 11, Title 11 Floodplain Overlay District (FP) Ordinance:
Corrie: Ordinance No. 01-919 is an ordinance amending 10-6-5.B.1 and 10-6-5.C.2 Flood Damage Prevention and Repealing Chapter 11 Title 11 Flood Plain Overlay District FP Ordinance.
At this time, I would like to have Gary kind of go over this one (inaudible) because it’s kind of complicated. Thank you Gary.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shouldn’t we read the –
Corrie: We can, either way.
Bird: -- first?
Corrie: We can read it or you can have him explain it then I’ll read it.
Bird: Okay. Now that’s (inaudible).
Corrie: It doesn’t make me any difference. All right. Let’s don’t break protocol here. Mr. Clerk if you’ll read the Ordinance No. 01-919 by title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. Ordinance No. 01-919, an ordinance of the City of Meridian pertaining to flood damage prevention amending section 10-6-5.B.1, residential
construction by the addition thereto of a new subsection C to amend section 10-6-5.C.2 flood ways for the addition thereto of the reference of section 10-6-5 and for the additions of
a new section E all o f the chapter 6 of title 10 flood damage prevention and repealing chapter 11
title 11 Meridian City code Flood Plane overlay district FP and providing an effective date.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like Ordinance No. 01-919 read in its entirety. I see a shaking of heads of all the people in the audience.
Thank you. We will discuss this sourly sweet one. (inaudible). All right, Mr. Smith would you please –
G. Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. On page 2 of the proposed ordinance, about midway through the page item No. C is an addition to the ordinance. This addition is what we have been,
in the public works department, have been relying on when elevation certificates were prepared and submitted to us by builders for their homes that are located within a Flood Plane.
That is that the lowest finished floor area of residential structures, including mobile, manufactured homes shall be elevated to be no less than 12 inches above the flood elevation.
Bird: Is that flood elevation or evaluation?
G. Smith: I think it should be elevation. I’m not sure what flood evaluation would be.
(inaudible discussion)
G. Smith: I think it should be elevation. We recently, the Idaho Department of Water Resources puts out a little quarterly news letter called the Idaho Water Log. It’s done by their
local flood insurance program coordinator. In this last issue it had an article called The Latest on Crawl Spaces. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency apparently when they
formed the NFI, the flood insurance program in 1968, required the crawl spaces be considered as the lowest finished floor elevation. So, in a nutshell that puts the elevation of the
dirt in the crawl space as the point of origin for elevation of one foot above the base flood elevation. In order to keep the home from having to purchase flood insurance. I think you
can visualize that if you raise the elevation of the crawl space dirt to one foot above the flood elevation you’d have a bunch of homes sticking out of the ground significantly. That
is where they’re being built within a Flood Plane. As it exists right now, it’s pretty easily done to see that the finished floor is one foot above that base flood elevation within the
Flood Plane. This way, it’s going to be very difficult. So, I had a discussion with the local coordinator for NIFP and lodged my concerns and my complaint about it. All he could do was
say well, this is what FEMA’s rules and regs say. He gave me the name of the region 10 coordinator and suggested that I call there. It’s going to require homes that are built, or have
been built with the finished floor one-foot above flood elevation to purchase flood insurance. The ordinance as it’s written and presented to you tonight, I think needs to be tabled
for a meeting or so, so that this can be resolved; rewritten perhaps. I’m not sure how much luck we’re going
to have in getting FEMA to change their requirements but it seemed to be, to me it seemed to be a little severe. It doesn’t make much sense.
Anderson: What Flood Plane are they using, Gary? Are they using the 100-year flood --?
G. Smith: Yes.
Anderson: -- or 50 years?
G. Smith: 100 year flood.
Bird: The crawl space is considered a finished floor?
G. Smith: They’re considering a crawl space as a basement, is what they’re doing, correct?
Bird: A midget can’t walk in mine, let alone me.
G. Smith: Yeah and I told –
Bird: I can’t crawl in mine as fat as I am.
G. Smith: I told the coordinator, I said you need to understand that a crawl space is just exactly that and in some homes it’s a slither space. You don’t even crawl. You just have to
slither through there. Never the less FEMA is considering it a basement. They’re not going to raise the dirt in the crawl space above the base flood elevation. All that means is that
all those homes are going to have to purchase flood insurance.
McCandless: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Gary, how are other communities doing this?
G. Smith: I don’t know. I haven’t had a chance to talk to anybody else after reading this article. That was Friday and I called and the guy called me back Monday morning. I haven’t had
a chance to talk to anybody else about it. He made a comment, well the northwest is a little bit unique because we build our homes on crawl spaces, as opposed to other parts of the country
where they just build them on slabs I guess and they don’t have crawl spaces so they don’t have to deal with an area where flood waters could flow through the vents into the crawl space
and cause hydro-static damage to the supporting structure for the home. That was the explanation I received.
Corrie: So, a contractor builds it either on the concrete slab or they get charged $500 a year for flood insurance that goes to the government just they can send it back to us?
G. Smith: Yes sir.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Any questions of Gary on this one? He has requested that we kind of hold off on it just a little bit until we get some qualification from FEMA. He can or we can.
Anderson: Just a comment. I guess I would like to see you check with some other communities and see what they’re doing because I would be reluctant to approve this ordinance if it
is automatically going to mean that a whole bunch of our citizens have to run out and buy flood insurance just because of us approving that ordinance. I’d like to find out how some others
are dealing with that.
G. Smith: I can do that. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Does that mean structures that are already built would be effected or just anything from passage on forward?
G. Smith: I didn’t ask that question. I didn’t want to ask that question.
De Weerd: It probably should be asked. In a way that you won’t get anyone in trouble.
(inaudible discussion)
G. Smith: All I can say is that –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Unless Congress wants it (inaudible).
G. Smith: All the elevation certificates that I’ve seen to this point, the elevation certified has been the lowest livable floor level, whether it’s a basement or your first floor. But,
it’s livable floor area. That’s where all the elevation certificates have been based.
McCandless: So, now they’re changing that?
Bird: Yeah.
G. Smith: Well, they’re saying it’s never been different. But, how we interpreted it here and our coordinator apparently interpreted the same too. Because we had never been advised otherwise.
That it’s always been a crawl space considered as a basement.
De Weerd: So, it changed, irregardless, people are going to be effected. I think we need to see a Flood Plane map again. I know we’ve seen it at one time. That might be helpful next
time we talk about this as well.
G. Smith: Okay. I can do that.
Corrie: Any other discussion? I guess, as many ditches as we’ve got in here, we’ve got a lot of Flood Plane areas. I’ll entertain a motion then to hold this ordinance until we get
some answers from Gary.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we table Ordinance 01-919 until, how long do you need Gary?
G. Smith: I should have something back by –
Corrie: We’ve got the 17th, the 24th –
Bird: Let’s go the 24th that’s a non-land.
G. Smith: 2 weeks?
Anderson: 24th of July?
G. Smith: Oh that would be plenty. Yes. That would be plenty of time. Thank you.
Anderson: So, table this until the 24th of July in which to enable Gary the Public Works director to do a little more research on this.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to table Ordinance No. 01-919 until 7-24-01. Now, you don’t want to use the ordinance (inaudible). You want to use that number then? You’re just
going to table the –
Berg: Mr. Mayor. That’s correct. I’d rather just leave it blank and keep the numbers consecutive as we’re approving them.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: What’s the purpose in that? I mean, other than just keeping them in line? I mean –
Berg: Tracking. Knowing when we approved them in order. We may delay this until the 24th but we may have a couple of annexation ordinances in between. We kind of got in trouble with
the lost numbers in the past because we attached it and then we brought it up and it seemed like an old number.
Bird: This ordinance might not pass for another 6 months.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: If we’re going to do that I need to probably amend my motion –
Corrie: Yeah, you do.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: If the second would agree I would amend my motion to remove the ordinance number and just refer to it as the ordinance amending the flood damage prevention and repealing
chapter 11 of title 11 Flood Plane overlay district ordinance.
McCandless: Agree.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to hold and table the ordinance amending the flood damage prevention and repealing chapter 11 until 7-24-01. Any further discussion? All those in
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Ordinance No. : Stealth Cellular Tower Ordinance:
Corrie: Ordinance No. 01-919, I guess that will be this one then. Stealth Cellular Tower Ordinance. If the clerk would read the ordinance by title only. Ordinance 01-919.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-919. An ordinance of the City of Meridian Idaho providing for stealth cellular tower micro-pole or equivalent systems
to be erected within the City of Meridian and the surrounding Meridian area of impact as an allowed use in all zoning districts of
the City of Meridian except in residential zoning districts where the towers would require a Conditional Use Permit and all stealth cellular tower uses in all other zoning districts
would be subject to Planning and Zoning Director administrative approval providing for the repealing of any ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. Providing for the effect of validity, providing a saving clause, inviting an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of Ordinance No. 01-919 by title only. Anyone in the audience like to have it read in its entirety. Hearing none. I’ll entertain a motion, or
is there any discussion on Ordinance No. 01-919? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird: Just a minute. Shari.
Corrie: Okay. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. The only thing I had a question on is if you want these to be in residential even with a Conditional Use Permit? I guess you can always deny them. Then
under A, we might have a little problem as far as, maybe it’s more a definition. For example, the one that Crickett Communications mentioned to you that’s in the A Best storage area,
that’s adjacent to a residential district. Could we just put proposed in or within 300 feet, or 200 feet of a residential district?
Corrie: If you’re going to tie it down to, rather than adjacent, to have it to a footage? Adjacent means anything. Footage gets closer.
Stiles: Yeah. I mean that would seem to kind of preclude the Fred Meyer one, the one at Fred Meyer. They’re also proposing one at the Seventh Day Adventist Church on Linder that would
be adjacent to a residential district. What do you think, Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. My memo suggested this be in a workshop agenda. I put this together and I think you know I don’t have a habit of trying to put stuff in
front of you that you haven’t talked about before. When the last cell tower thing came up with regard to Tully Park, (inaudible) talked bout where to approve them. Where not to approve
them. You know whether it be an administrative approval, that sort of thing. That’s why I put it together because it was out of that discussion. It was my intent that it be at a workshop
so that you could pick it apart and you could do whatever you want to do with it to make it work, not necessarily that it be on the agenda for adoption. My apologies to Will because
I probably didn’t make that clear enough in my memo. That was my intent, was to try to give us an ordinance so that when they come in for one of these, quote stealth cellular towers
that Shari’s got something to talk to them about. That’s all. I don’t have a problem with, the adjacent part of it is probably
too fuzzy. You’re right it probably needs to have some definitive distance requirement. That’s why I want it on a workshop.
Stiles: That’s the only thing I would have a comment on.
Corrie: The only thing, too, it says the surrounding area, Meridian area of impact and adjacent to a residential zoning district. That could be out there on Chinden. Okay. Council,
you want to put that on a workshop –
Bird: I’d do it the 10th.
Corrie: -- the 10th?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Don’t use the ordinance number.
Bird: I’m not. I would move that we table to our workshop on July 10, 2001 the stealth cellular tower ordinance.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to table the stealth cellular tower ordinance to 10-01 meeting agenda. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Ordinance No. : ZA 01-001 Request for consideration of amendments to Title 12, Chapter 6, “Planned Development”, and Title 11, Chapter 17 “Conditional Uses” of Meridian
City Ordinance, along with related changes by Primeland Development:
Corrie: Okay, well we might do this one. Ordinance No. 01-919. It covers a multitude (inaudible) here. Would the clerk please read the ordinance by title only please?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: I don’t think I remember discussing this one either.
Bird: Yeah, we did.
Corrie: Did we? I didn’t. Okay. Go ahead.
Berg: Ordinance No. 01-919. I got the number right. An ordinance of the City of Meridian amending section 2 definitions of chapter 2 title 11 providing for additional definitions, deletion
of definitions and revising definitions and amending subsection of E3 of section 3 of chapter 3 title 11 to add additional language to delete language and amending section 3 of chapter
4 as titled to delete language and add a new sub paragraph C and amending section 2 of chapter 7 and title 11 to add language and delete language and amending subsection B7 of section
5 of chapter 13 of title 11 to add language and delete language and amending section 1 of chapter 8 of title 11 of the zoning schedule of use control to add definitions and delete definitions
and repealing chapter 17 of title 11 conditional uses, zoning regulations and chapter 6 of title 12 planned development subdivision and development of the Meridian City Code. Providing
for conflicts to be repealed, rescinded and annulled. Providing for the validity. Providing a savings clause and providing an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve heard the reading of the ordinance by title only. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to have it read in its entirety at this point?
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: No.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: If you do, you have to read it.
Anderson: It’s only going to take forever.
Corrie: Okay. Is this Shari’s? Is this yours?
Bird: I think it’s Becky’s.
Corrie: I don’t think it’s Becky’s. Okay. Council has some questions on these.
Bird: I don’t know if any if the Council has read this.
De Weerd: I have.
McCandless: I have.
Corrie: I’ve read it and gone over it a couple times with Shari.
Bird: I read it but not word for word. I skimmed it.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council.
Corrie: Adult entertainment?
(inaudible discussion)
***End of Side One***
Bird: -- under commercial. We took care of that with an ordinance not 3 years ago, didn’t we?
Corrie: We did as far as, what they could have –
Bird: What they could have and where they could have it.
Corrie: But where is it adult entertainment.
De Weerd: We just changed where they could have it a year ago.
Bird: Yeah, I guess that was just a year ago, wasn’t it?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess, in our last discussion, you know I was looking at it in terms of trying to work some of the changes that will be needed in addition with the new comp plan into
this. But now I understand you can’t do that yet. I guess those were a lot of my concerns. There were a couple of things that were still yet to be – I didn’t know if they were resolved
between staff and the author of this. They were mainly dealing with the open space issues. Also if Council has really taken a look at this zoning schedule of use control and what is
going to require Conditional Use Permits and what won’t. If this is even the time to be looking at it and making changes to that. Is this the time to do that?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
De Weerd: That might be something we want to do when we come through with the changes for the comp plan. I just know there’s things for Old Town that were being considered to take them
out of conditional use and making them permitted.
Stiles: That’s a whole other issue.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Council. The history of this was that there were (inaudible) in the development community that wanted to see changes in our planned development ordinance to
facilitate some of the things that they wanted to do which they couldn’t do under the current code. That was the genesis for these revisions. They put that together, worked with the
Planning and Zoning Department, worked with Planning and Zoning Commission and came up with a proposal which was forwarded on to the Council for approval but it wasn’t in ordinance form.
I believe that those changes and all of those things were reviewed by the Council at a previous meeting. So, all this does is put it in ordinance form unless I’ve missed some or made
some typos or that sort of thing. But, we did our best to try to get it in ordinance form. It’s specifically designed just to limit on the planned development. Some of the things that
you’re, that Councilwoman de Weerd’s talking about in terms of when do we have Conditional Use Permits and some of these other things like Old Town. All of those things are legitimate
questions. This was not intended to be a complete overhaul of the zoning ordinance or the subdivision ordinance. It was only intended to be changes to the planned development part of
the ordinance only. Passage of this doesn’t mean that you can’t change those other things later. I mean, it’s natural to want to try to improve it, make it better and make it fit more
or maybe reduce the time we spend sitting up here on Tuesday evenings and the P&Z Commission on Thursday evenings and that sort of thing. Just for background that this was a pretty limited
issue.
De Weerd: Well, when you give us a big thick document to read, you know, you tend to get over zealous about other issues that have been a thorn in your side for a while. I realize after
our last discussion that many changes are going to be needed with the comp plan. So, A lot of this probably should be looked at then. I guess I still have questions on the planned development
standards, and I’m looking at my old copy. I don’t know if the page numbers changed. On page 52, 12-6-2 B if it was resolved on the private active recreational facilities. That one about
the 20 percent of the total project devoted to uses permitted by the exemption which is 12-6-3 too on page 54. Then the last issue, I didn’t know if resolution has been made on page
57, 12-6-6 No. 7 regarding the density bonus and how it’s used by fire station, parks and public schools and that sort of thing.
Corrie: Shari, comment?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Councilwoman de Weerd. I’ll cover the last one first I guess. We did have some discussion about the residential density bonus. When Planning and Zoning
Commission looked at it and when I ran through a few different scenarios, there could have been some instances when it may have been artificially – the development may have been artificially
laid out to get a very high density. It would have only been possible under certain circumstances. I Believe, and Becky Bowcutt, who is here tonight, how this read at first was that
they would be allowed the same number of units that they would have been
permitted to have on that land. Say for example, they had 40 acres and they gave 10 acres for an elementary school. They would have been able to have 4 units per acre for that 10 acres.
So, they would have been able to have an additional 40 units in the overall development on the other 30 acres. How it reads now is that, on the 30 acres where they would be allowed to
have 120 units, they could now have 132?
Bird: 143.
Stiles: Where is it? So, another 12.
Bird: 132 units.
Stiles: 132 units. I believe Miss Bowcutt has gone over this with the building contractor’s association. They had no comment. They seem to support it I guess by their lack of comment
on it. Otherwise I would think they would be here. But, we were just trying to find some way to encourage and give some incentive for the dedication of that land. Now, it doesn’t mean
donation, it just means, dedication and what we would consider dedication at pre-development prices, not at an inflated price. They can give us documentation of that when they make the
dedication. We can usually verify that because it’s either going to be the city that’s receiving the property or it’s going to be the school district. Maybe, if you want to ask Becky
something about that. She’s here and available. Does that not make any sense to you?
Corrie: It still keeps it under the 10 percent though, right?
Stiles: It gives them an additional 10 percent so they can have an additional 10 percent of the units that they would be allowed to have on the undedicated portion of the property.
So, if they had 110 acres, they would be allowed an additional 40, 44?
De Weerd: And that’s over and above the required open space that they’re already getting?
Stiles: Yes. They won’t get around the requirement for open space.
De Weerd: So, that would be(inaudible)—
Stiles: A minimum of 5 percent.
De Weerd: Right, over and above.
Stiles: Right. It won’t be counted as part of their open space, the schoolyard will not be part of their open space.
De Weerd: So, when you get into the splitting hairs on what is pre-development cost? It seems that there’s a lot of difference in what people think pre-development cost is. What
is that?
Stiles: That’s the cost they paid for the property before they put any money into the dirt at all. It’s what they paid for the property.
De Weerd: Okay. And that is known that it’s pre-development? Or should that be in this?
Stiles: Well, it also says the density may be given. It doesn’t require it to be given.
De Weerd: Well, yeah the developer may not even plan those extra units. I would like to have that pre-development cost in there. Probably in the definitions.
Stiles: So, we could add, for dedications of land at pre-development cost.
De Weerd: Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: Tell me exactly where you’re looking please.
De Weerd: Page 57, No. 7.
Nichols: Okay. So, we’re talking about section 12-6-7?
De Weerd: No, the one above that. The last paragraph above it.
Nichols: Okay. Excuse me.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council. Becky also added at pre-development cost or gifted.
Nichols: less
Stiles: Or less?
Nichols: Less than or equal to.
De Weerd: And gifted. Definitely like it gifted.
Stiles: Or less because some of the developers would be able to get a tax write off for that. I think what might be a little confusing is this looks so huge. I don’t know if any of
you got a copy of the one that I prepared that just showed the
changes only. So, it looks a little imposing when you see all of this. In order to get it in ordinance form it had to include all of the definitions.
De Weerd: Okay. So, how about on page – did anyone else have more issues on the pre-development costs or less or all of that stuff? On page 54, 12-6-3 No. 2, on the 20 percent of the
total area.
Stiles: I’m sorry. What was your question on that one?
De Weerd: There was an issue on it and I’ll have to look at my other notes.
Stiles: We talked about the 20 percent at Planning and Zoning Commission too. That’s a maximum. They don’t have to agree to 20 percent. Say they come in with a development and they’re
not proposing a use that’s like neighborhood type convenience or it just doesn’t work with the overall development. It’s not a good development. They still don’t have to approve it.
They can say well, you know 20 percent is too much. Maybe 5 percent or 10 percent.
De Weerd: Okay. So, that’s why the no more than –
Stiles: Yeah.
De Weerd: It’s kind of scary saying a number because that’s the one they always go for.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: It’s all under conditional use.
Bird: That’s right. It says right there, commission or council.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: The other one was on page 52, 12-6-2-A-3-B.
Stiles: 3-B?
De Weerd: 3-B.
Bird: 3-B, private.
Stiles: I’m sorry. What was your question on that one?
De Weerd: That is, when they list recreational facilities, is this implying that that’s part of the 5 percent?
Stiles: No.
De Weerd: Okay. So that would be in addition to –
Stiles: 5 percent will be required regardless.
Anderson: It’s referring to that they have to have 2 of these (inaudible) --.
Bird: 2 or more of the following amenities. That don’t include the 5 percent at all.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Yeah, it says right there.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: So, but these could be within the 5 percent open space, like picnic area or basketball court or swimming pool?
Bird: It won’t count.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: They won’t count as the 5 percent. 5 percent (inaudible) and will not be counted as an amenity.
Corrie: Becky, is that the way you read that? We’ll get yours since you’re the one that (inaudible).
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 12715 West Edna Court. They’ve got to satisfy at least 2 of these amenities. The 5 percent in your landscape ordinance is mandatory for all single-family residential
developments. 10 percent is mandatory for multi family developments. So, what we wanted to make sure that didn’t happen is that the 5 percent, people would say that’s one of my amenities.
If they double it, if they go from 5 to 10, that is and amenity and then they would still in addition to that have to provide tennis court or a swimming pool. It can be on that 10 percent
or on that 5 percent. For the privilege of doing the PUD and having the versatility of this ordinance, they have to provide more than the minimum. The minimum is 5 percent regardless.
I guess my only concern is we’ve got brackets, 5 percent landscape open space is mandatory for all developments and will not be counted as an amenity. In the multi family developments
it says 10. I just don’t want any confusion or contradiction between your landscape ordinance or this. I don’t know if Mr. Nichols sees it in the city’s best interest that they delineate
between single family residential development s and multi family residential developments. I don’t know. Do you see what I’m getting at. An applicant can come in with an
apartment complex and say well it says right here. I’m doing a tennis court and a clubhouse, therefor I don’t need 10 percent. I guess that was my only concern.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Now that you brought it up. That definitely will too.
(inaudible discussion)
Bowcutt: Then the staff says but it’s in the landscape ordinance and then the applicant says but it says right here. You know how some people are. I just think we ought to clarify that.
(inaudible discussion)
Bowcutt: 10 percent. A mandatory 10 percent.
(inaudible discussion)
Bowcutt: It sounds good to me.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. Let me ask, some alternative wording that doesn’t tie down the percentage. Simply says landscape open space is mandatory for all developments and the landscape
ordinance minimum will not be counted as an amenity. That way it –
Bowcutt: That’s excellent. That covers both of them. That makes the person have to go back to your landscape ordinance and make sure they’re in compliance.
(inaudible discussion)
Bowcutt: That would be great. I just want to make sure – I guess I don’t to see them do 15 percent, 5 and 10, so, you’re not interpreting it that way are you Councilwoman de Weerd?
De Weerd: No. But I didn’t know how A and B were working together. The clarity you’ve added there is very helpful.
Bowcutt: Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: It was easy to read what I wanted into it. I saw it would be easy to read what someone lesser would want to do with it too. I think that satisfies that concern.
Corrie: So, Mr. Nichols, where are w heading and what are we saying where?
Bird: Page 52.
Corrie: Just the A?
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Under 12-6-2 A.3.a we would take the parenthesis statement and that statement would now read landscaped open space is mandatory for all
developments and the minimum landscape ordinance requirements will not be counted as an amenity. That’s what I would propose. You tell me if that’s what you like.
Bird: It sounds good.
De Weerd: I really think it works.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Any other things that you would like to have the attorney change?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, how do you want to do it? Do you want to have the attorney make the changes and okay it now or wait until you see it and do it the 24th? Or you can do it
earlier.
Bird: Let’s go ahead and pass it with the changes. (inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. You can have a motion to amend the ordinance and then pass the amended one or we can put on July 3rd and I can have a clean one to you this week. I mean it won’t
take just --. At this point, since all we’re talking about, I think we’ve got 2 changes you want to see. One is in 12-6-6.A.7 and the other one is in 12-6-2.A.3.a and that way it can
still be done ahead of your discussion on Bridgetower.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I don’t have a problem with just amending it.
Nichols: Okay. It’s just I have to get the clean copy to Will for the signatures. We’ll get her done. Mr. Mayor. I would propose that the language that you wanted at 12-6-6.A.7 which
is on page 57. At the end of that first sentence, insert this phrase, provided to the public entity at a cost less than or equal to the applicant’s pre-development cost for that land.
De Weerd: Or gifted.
Nichols: Well, that’s less than.
Bird: That’s part of it.
De Weerd: Well, I’d still like that subliminal thing in there.
Bird: They’re going to gift and we’re not going to read that paragraph.
Nichols: Okay. How about this then, provided to the public entity by donation or at a cost less than or equal to the applicant’s pre-development cost of the land.
De Weerd: That sounds excellent. Thank you very much.
Corrie: I would think if (inaudible).
De Weerd: I’m very cheap you know.
Corrie: Well, okay. In that case (inaudible). Then we have the 2 amendments on page 52 and 57 as stated by the attorney –
De Weerd: And in any way we can advocate partnerships and donations, I really strongly advocate that.
Corrie: Okay. The changes, amendments? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion for approval with the amendments as stated in the motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we accept the amendments as stated on page 52 and 57 as stated so clearly by our attorney and be added to the ordinance.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve the ordinance No. 01-919 with the amendments on page 52 and page 57 as stated by the attorney. For the Mayor to sign and the clerk
to attest.
Bird: The Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Technically the motion was just to amend this draft and then there would be a motion to adopt with a typical suspension of the rules.
Bird: He’s telling me I have to do an amendment first. Then we can adopt it.
Corrie: Then the motion is –
Bird: Just to amend it.
Corrie: -- approval of the amendments on Ordinance No. 01-919. Any further discussion? Hearing none, All those in favor of the amendments to the ordinance say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, with that approved, I will entertain a motion to approve Ordinance No. 01-919 with a suspension of the rules.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we adopt Ordinance 01-919 with the amendments and a suspension of the rules and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 01-919 with the amendments, the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: With that, the agenda has been fulfilled. I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Oh, no.
Corrie: I don’t have to recognize her.
De Weerd: You already did.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: We have our Ada County hearings coming up on Thursday night and the Mayor and I will be out of town. It’s very important that the city is represented. Council Member Bird,
-- because I’m not the only one sitting up here.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: I need to see – Cherie will be there. Councilman Bird said he would attend. I wanted to see if anyone else had plans to do so.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Keith is the man. I’ll write him up a script.
Bird: Forget it.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Second is the ACHD agenda. Did that need to be set or do we do that tomorrow night?
Corrie: I don’t see as it has to be set. I mean, we’ve got one that’s set up. (inaudible). Have you got that out to (inaudible)?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. If you have any other things to add to the agenda, I need to get them to Susan at ACHD so she can put them on the agenda and any preparation
for –
Bird: July 2nd right?
Berg: July 2nd at noon at ACHD.
De Weerd: I’d like to request that Shari gives them a copy of the transportation section of our comp plan update. To the ACHD Commission meeting. Give that to the Commissioners and ask
them to review it.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Did we get a letter from them this week?
Stiles: About the only thing they commented on was the Waltman Lane, not wanting that to be a collector. That’s why they made that comment is because they looked at our Comprehensive
Plan.
De Weerd: Okay. The commissioners did or that was staff?
Stiles: I doubt the commissioners did.
De Weerd: I’d still like the commissioners to at least get a copy of that section.
Stiles: So, you want that to be copied for them?
Corrie: Yeah, (inaudible) they’re getting it. Also I was going to put it on the agenda for the next one with them.
Stiles: The one after this?
Corrie: Right. After they get a chance to look at it and read it. They’ve got a copy from (inaudible). When he gave us the copy, he gave them one as well. The only thing wrong with
that letter was the date is wrong. It’s 2001 instead of 2002. Plus the fact that we need to talk to them at the next agenda meeting with them on that. We need to have a meeting of minds
because they don’t want to make that a connector because (inaudible) economics but I think if the Council feels strong enough to make that a connector, then we better make sure they
understand it and discuss it. There won’t be enough time to discuss it Monday with the other things on there that they want.
Stiles: Okay.
De Weerd: That just opens up, you know in our planning and maybe having them look at it, is we need to get a frontage road at least on there for the Ten Mile to the Canyon County
line too so that we don’t have the same problems we already have.
Stiles: Frontage road where?
De Weerd: Along I-84.
Bird: Frontage road between Ten Mile and (inaudible). It’s a very good idea. (inaudible). All those interstates should have a frontage road. We’re just a little behind the eight ball.
De Weerd: That’s the problem we’re having with Waltman and Magic Valley. Those need the collectors or the frontage roads and we already have developments in there.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: If we have the collector study on there so maybe that’s a good topic to include on there.
Stiles: Roads are as much a part of land use planning as anything else though. I think we do have the say.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: I just wondered, I didn’t notice on the agenda tomorrow, the Bud Way and Wells Fargo about the plumbing for the police department.
Bird: I don’t think Mr. Skinner gets in until tomorrow so there would be no way that he could be here as I understand it.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, that’s what their letterhead had said. So, when can we act on the bond purchase or the bond (inaudible)?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Skinner won’t be here tomorrow. I mean he don’t get in town until tomorrow. When will we be able to get on with that bond and get that taken care of?
Corrie: I think Mr. Nichols, have we heard when that was going to be. He called my office but he didn’t give me a day. He said it’s all done. It’s jus that they need to have him there.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. We tentatively have set up, as far as the documents. A document review meeting by telephone conference on Thursday at 2:30 in the afternoon.
I believe that those that want to be at City Hall can be in director Kilchenmann’s office or some place anyway. We’ll have phones set up so the speaker phone. I’ve got some appointments
in Nampa so I’ll be joining from the Nampa office on Thursday afternoon. That’s just the document review. I don’t think we’re negotiating the interest rate or anything like that, just
simply the form of the documents.
De Weerd: So, when do we know about the rates and secure the money?
Nichols: I’ll have to find out tomorrow on that. I think that the rate negotiations shouldn’t take long to do that part of it.
Bird: It won’t take long.
Nichols: That’s really the only variable in those once you’ve got the language of the documents down. We know what the amount is. We’ve just got to pick an interest rate. (inaudible)
Bird: If we wait another week, Greenspan’s going to take it down another half point.
Corrie: That does not necessarily meant the bank will.
Bird: Well, I don’t know. We can twist some arms.
De Weerd: Just a couple of agenda items. On the workshop, I understand we’ll have our parks department giving time frames on our construction for the different parks that were budgeted
for this year. Also on the impact fee. I won’t be here that week. I had wanted it tonight but that kind of fell through. I’d rather it just be done so you don’t have to wait for me.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: I do understand that the change to the resolution for the Meridian Development Committee, or for the Urban Renewal Area is going to be on our agenda next week. Is that
correct?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council. We’ve been working on that resolution. We can do, we can attach a map. We just can’t do legal descriptions between now
and then. It’s been difficult for us to come up with (inaudible). So, we can just attach a map and call it there it is. To do the revenue allocation area, which we are not doing at this
time we would need a more specific legal description. But we can do the Urban Renewal Area.
De Weerd: By map?
Nichols: By map. That’s what we’ll do.
De Weerd: So, that will be next week?
Nichols: Yeah. The form of the resolution is ready. We’ve just got to work up the map.
De Weerd: Also, the Treasure Valley Future’s project, which I looked at our Old Town area. I don’t know if everyone got a copy of that presentation. There is a website you can see
it in color. It’s very informative and very well done. It’s www.tvfutures.org and it’s very comprehensive. They did an excellent job. I would encourage you to go and look at it. It looks
better in color than in black and white.
Bowcutt: Could you repeat that?
De Weerd: It’s www.tvfutures.org
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: That’s all. Thanks.
Corrie: Okay. Is this tentatively okay with you? (inaudible) This is on one of the (inaudible) with Kevin Howell (inaudible)
De Weerd: I’m gone that week.
Corrie: You’re gone that week? Okay. Look at the – are you here the 19th?
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: How’s the 19th look? This will include –
De Weerd: At what time? We’re going out into the wilderness.
Bird: You’ve got more vacation time than (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: How’s 6:30 sound to you?
De Weerd: On the 19th?
Corrie: Yes.
McCandless: What is that for?
Corrie: That’s just a meeting with Kevin Howell that Tom Kuntz and 2 of the City Council (inaudible) the Crystal Springs we turned down. We need to have some clarification on what
they want.
McCandless: Okay.
Corrie: I see the eyes glaze over. I’ll talk to you about this and what can be discussed.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Yeah, and I want – we’ll talk about this because I had some things that I told Kevin that we would not be discussing. He said that’s all right. I think. We may get down (inaudible).
De Weerd: Where is this happening? Here?
Corrie: It will probably be here. We (inaudible). It’s a small group. With that, I’ll entertain a motion Mr. Anderson, --
De Weerd: (inaudible) have a lynch mob?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I’d make a motion that we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK