Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02-04 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Bill Nary, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie McCandless Members Absent: Keith Bird Others Present: Bill Nichols, Mike Worley, Gary Smith, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Kenny Bowers, Joe Silva, Rick Clinton, Leslie Howard, Brad Watson, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless O Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: I will open the Pre-Council Meeting Tuesday, February 4, 2003 at 6:00 P.M. Roll call attendance please Mr. Berg. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Okay the next is the adoption of the agenda. Any further discussion on that? De Weerd: I have none. Corrie: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion then on the agenda adoption. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move that we adopt the agenda as printed. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay motion made and seconded all in favor say aye. All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Tabled from January 21, 2003: Discussion / Decision on MUBS Billing Directive: Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 2 of 17 Corrie: The third item is tabled from the January 21, 2003. It was Discussion / Decision on MUBS Billing Directive. Who is doing the MUBS Gary? Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I believe that you have in your packet a memorandum from Leslie concerning some additional information on this subject. If you have any questions beyond the information that she’s provided to you Leslie is here tonight to help answer those and Rick Clinton is also here. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yes Mr. Nary. Nary: Gary one thing I noted in Leslie’s memo and whoever you think is the right person to answer but it appears to me we’ve cut the amount of billing directives almost in half in about six months. From 800 to 417 so we’ve significantly reduced it and I guess I’m still not convinced by this memo that people won’t get used to it like anything else they’ll get used it and then they’re never going to get 100 percent satisfaction anyway. Smith: Right. Nary: But that people will get used to it and instead of stopping it and now allowing it to essentially creep back up again even though we may consider collecting a fee for it we’re just going to perpetuate the same problem. The problem a year ago was staff time. We’re going to have to always readjust the fee to try to recoup staff cost. Smith: Yes. Nary: We’re going to have to revisit the fees yearly. We would have to revisit the directive periodically. I think that was another issue that was raised before was that we don’t always know when the property transfer and the sole from one person to another so we have to revisit these periodically. Again creating more staff work versus now where we’ve cut it in half by just eliminating it entirely. I just – I guess I just have a hard time thinking that year from now we wouldn’t have it cut in half again. Eventually we would eliminate it entirely and where would we be bad off by doing that. Smith: Thank you Mr. Nary I think those are good questions. I’m going to turn that over to Leslie because she’s had kind of first hand information with it. Howard: Mayor and Council I agree with you. We were brought here to address Mr. Horton’s questions when he brought bringing the billing directive back before you. Yes, I belive bringing the billing directive back would eliminate a lot of the problems with the property management companies and some of the property owners. Yes, we have cut them in half however we are still hearing some complaints from property management companies and property owners. At this time, we have asked them just to submit something to us in writing about their Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 3 of 17 feelings on this. We’re just going to stockpile these into a folder in case they’re needed later on down the road. What I’m looking for tonight as well as my staff is just a decision on which way Mayor and Council would like us to go. We are prepared either way at this point. I’m looking for your opinion on this matter just to address Mr. Horton’s concerns so that we can move forward. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Well I guess then I read your memo and your memo actually isn’t just asking for an opinion it’s requesting to change back with some other modifications to this billing directive thing. I guess, like I said I’m not convinced that we’re not always going to have some people that are inconvenienced by the fact that they have to maintain the program themselves. That if we had been able to cut the amount of billing directives in half in less than six months then I still have a hard time seeing why that isn’t a benefit to the city in itself the less staff time it takes to manage all the billing directive. Eventually, whether it’s a year or two from now that we can eliminate them all then that seems to me would be allowing your staff more opportunity to do the other things of their jobs the collections and the likes and processing all of this stuff. As our user system grows it seems kind of dangerous to kind of create this more staffing even with a fee attached to it create more staff work necessary to manage these billing directives as the system grows larger. We would want to eliminate this because just managing the system and users in the billing and the processing all that of just the system itself it seems like that’s only going to get busier. By adding this on top of it even with a fee that’s just going to add more staff or more necessity for staff or more staff being stretched to their limits. Right now, we told Mr. Horton no. He didn’t like it, but we told him no and we were fine with it. I don’t know how many other people have made that request from you but again I’m not convinced that this is still in the best interest of the city to change back to a system that we were trying to eliminate to relieve the time it takes to mange it. Howard: Go ahead I’m sorry. De Weerd: I just wanted to make comment. I guess what I’m trying to ascertain from all of this is, is keeping public or customer service in mind what is the most efficient way we can do this. Now, this might take your staff more time but in the long run because of the number of complaints that you have stated you have had will it be actually less time or is it just a matter of the users getting used to the system. Then that will diminish over time the amount of staff you’re using to address the concerns, the complaints and all of that. Ultimately, we just want an efficient process that is fair and accruable and the ratepayers do not end up subsidizing a program to provide customer service to these renters. I see it on both sides and I’m just not convinced yet which one is going to be most efficient and still achieve the goal of providing good customer service. Howard: Mayor and Council with doing – when we started eliminating the billing directive we did receive a lot of complaints. We could only come up with about Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 4 of 17 20 property management companies and just a few off the top of our head as to customers that were complaining and asking for this to be reactivated. I’m looking at it from the customer service standpoint. Property management companies are now calling us asking us what their bills are faxing us a sheet of all the property addresses that they manage and we have to go into the computer and look these things up and send them to them if they didn’t get the bill directed to them. We have reduced staff time a little but not totally on that. My standpoint is more customer service than anything. Corrie: Let me jump in here with my boots on. Having had the complaints come into my office coming across the hall and everything else my feeling of this is what we need to do as far as what the public wants and not necessarily what we always want. I think the service to the customers would be better served in the option one than option two just saying we’re through you do it all and we’re not. It’s kind of a my way or the highway type thing and that’s one thing I don’t like about it. I think that if we’re looking at it for customer service the option one will work. I hear some of the calls that’s coming in here and I’m convinced that the option one that the customer service renter agreement will do the job. I don’t like the idea like I just said that you do it our way whether you like it or not. That’s where I’m coming from. I’m not going to get a vote here I can tell you that because we’re not going to be tied but just so that you have my feelings on this that option one in my case and what I’m hearing from the public would be the best way to go. A lot of less headaches for MUBS and my department doesn’t make any difference they calm down by the time they talk to me but they’re still upset about it. I guess the only (inaudible) I’ve really heard from is Cherie’s and have you got anything that you want to discuss? McCandless: Mr. Mayor I’m still trying to make up my mind. I guess I don’t understand why it’s so difficult. Why one doesn’t just bill all the owners of the property and let, them worry about getting that money back from the renters. I’ve never understood why it was so difficult. Corrie: I guess you could do it that way. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes I mean I think the reason is is because we used to do it the other way and that’s why there’s – nobody was complaining from what I at least understood a year ago. The property owners weren’t complaining by having this billing directive. What was told to us was that it was creating a lot of staff time in trying to manage all of these billing directives. My perspective is is that this system is only going to get larger. It’s not going to get smaller. We’ve approved numerous multi-family dwellings so we’re going to have more – this really deals a lot with especially apartment types of complexes and that’s the type of property management things isn’t that right. It’s like apartments? Howard: No. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 5 of 17 Nary: Okay just property management of homes. Howard: Yes. Nary: Okay. As the rental market grows, property management companies find it very difficult to have to guess how much the water bill is and charge that, as their rent is the base thing. That’s the way it was done before we did billing directives. They’re only complaining because we’ve made it more work on their part. The reason we took it off the city was because the users are subsidizing the system because now with that alternative of what they’re raising (inaudible) well we’re going to charge the property manger they are the people who want this billing directive they’re going to have to pay a fee for it. That way kind of striking that balance that at least, the users aren’t paying for the system or even paying for this management system. Again, I don’t see that it’s – I guess to me ultimately the users of the system are not in option to the billing directive – the users of the system aren’t subsidizing involved other than the cost of staff time to manage it. What I think we’ve heard both times from Utility Billing is that the staff time maybe as we have thought it would been significantly less it’s just different. Instead of managing the billing directives, we’re managing the phone calls. Is that fair or is that – Howard: Yes. Nary: -- we’ve transferred the work from one method to a different one. That’s where I think was why they’re asking is saying well instead of us having to have our staff manage all of these calls where people are very angry or bothered why don’t we find this compromise which is this billing directive that they have to pay a fee for to then allow for some options. It’s not free it has – it’s not going to cost the users anything. I understand all of those things but to me when we’ve cut the amount of them in half eventually the objective was to eliminate them entirely. I think as people get used to it they’ll get used to it. I recognize the Mayor’s point is that we’re trying to be customer service oriented as well and this kind of a compromise. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess maybe there’s been a shift Mr. Nary in staff time but probably in a more unpleasant way. If the same amount of time is being expended, we certainly would like happier staff than – I guess – Nary: That would fall in the be careful what you ask for category. De Weerd: Exactly. We know how that can go huh. I guess one thing I would like to see if we could clarify. As you’ve seen both systems work now how – what is the end result? Is the collection or the payment of the water bill better one way or another or are they both the same as well? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 6 of 17 Howard: It was probably better with the billing directive because the tenant received their bill, they paid it and the only time we dealt with the property owner and tenant was when they were moving in or out of the property. I hope I understood your question. De Weerd: Well then I think if the payment seems to be a little bit more prompt or on schedule and we’re providing better customer service and we’re charging to compensate for the time it take which we weren’t able to do the other way. We weren’t recouping that staff time to take the complaints and that sort of thing then it just makes more sense to go back to the Utility Billing Directive. You have fine- tuned it so that there are – it will be more efficient we’ll be compensated for the extra staff time it will take and we should be sensitive to the customer service that we’re trying to provide. I would agree with your recommendation Leslie to try this again, reevaluate it, maybe after six months see if it’s actually accomplishing the objectives that we would like it to do. If it is paying for itself and just, give it another chance. I guess that would be my recommendation. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would support that only if we were going to do a couple of things. We have a proposal and a policy change. I guess what I would find to be more consistent so that we can apply it more consistently. Then we also have a method to point the customers to as well as authorities so it isn’t something that every time someone has heartburn we’re going to have to revisit this at Pre- Council (inaudible) have an ordinance to establish what the process is, create the procedure and have an ordinance that we can put in our code. Then one, it helps the Billing Departments so that they can show the folks here’s the city ordinance that determines what it is required here and is very clear in this ordinance and we have a fee structure. We can revisit the fees as necessary. We have a method to in which to do that but that way we just do this once be done with it and not have to – that it’s clear in the structure is what it is. I think what’s proposed here is real good I think it needs a little more discussion as to how often. Like I brought up how often do we want them to redo this? Do we just want people to redo it when they sell their property how are we going to know that? Do we rather do it annually that they have to come in annually to do it? Do we have on a notarized statement of ownership do we want proof of ownership how is that done? I think if we’re going to do that I think we want to at least put it in our ordinance make it clear we do it once. We can have a Public Hearing if we want to it doesn’t matter but rather than just doing it as a policy directive I think we do it as an ordinance but we flush out exactly what the protocol is and we put it all in the ordinance and just do it once. Corrie: It means less chance of having to change it all the time that’s for sure. Nary: Exactly. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 7 of 17 Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: Mr. Mayor I can go along with what Bill just said if that’s what it takes. Corrie: Okay I think we’re pretty well agreed we could use it. We just need to put it in a form of a motion how do we want to do this, make it an ordinance, and go with that form itself. Does anyone want to -- Nary: Mr. Mayor sure. I’ll move that we move forward with this billing directive request by Utility Billing that they work with the staff and our City Attorney in presenting this in an ordinance form for adoption into the City Code. To include all of the protocol regulations necessary to enact this type of billing directive including a fee for the service. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay motion been made and second is there any further discussion? Nary: I’m just going to add to the motion I know that Mr. Nichols’ office is very busy I don’t obviously wanted the language very long but I’m not in a big hurry a month or six weeks or whatever is necessary to get that done is fine. Is that okay? Howard: Yes. Nary: If they know something is coming it’s better than – Howard: Yes. Nary: -- since this would be a new fee we would have to advertise for the fee anyways so Mr. Berg pointed out we need at least two weeks to advertise for the fee anyway. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council I think we can get something together and then you can have your hearing on the proposed ordinances along with the fee schedule at the same time. We would probably provide that the fee would be set by resolution would be the one thing that’s more easily changed than the ordinance in terms itself. Nary: So all I wanted to add was just four to six weeks is not a – not urgent but that way it give some timeframe so that we would have time to advertise. Corrie: Is that all right with the second? McCandless: Oh, you bet. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes motion carried thank you. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 8 of 17 Howard: Thank you Mayor and Council. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Tabled from January 21, 2003: Discussion of Lee Centers Project (fka Powder River Subdivision): Corrie: The next item is tabled from January 21, 2003 the discussion with Lee Centers Project 25 minutes. I hope you guys can do it in that time because I’m going to cut you off. We’ve got three other things right after that so can you do it Clint? Boyle: I will do that. I’ll just stop mid-sentence if I have to. Corrie: Okay you’re on. De Weerd: Just three minutes or less. Boyle: Suggestion though it’s only a suggestion. Good evening Mayor and City Council Members Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise. I appreciate your time this evening. I’ll get right to the point on this since I realize your time is limited. We had a discussion at the past City Council Meeting regarding a piece of property that is located on the east side of Linder Road approximately a half mile south of Victory. This particular property consists of a total parcel area actually there are three different parcels of 152 acres that is owned by Lee Centers. Currently, this piece of property is zoned RUT Rural Urban Transition in the County. There we go. Maybe we’ll get there staff is pulling up a map. This particular piece of property has had an application before you in the past that was denied by the Ada County Board of Commissioners based on comments received from the City of Meridian mainly related to Wastewater Treatment Systems and other issues. What I want to emphasize tonight is that what we put in front of you and what Gary Smith has put in front of is several different scenarios. We’ve worked very closely and have spent many hours with your staff in working on the issues surrounding development of this particular piece of property. We’ve met with the Planning Department with Public Work’s on several occasions. We’ve also met with the County we’ve met with the Fire Department, Fire District Committee Meetings and if – we tried to work out as many issues as we can. That’s why we’re here in front of you tonight because Mr. Centers obviously this time around wants the city to be comfortable with whatever he presents to Ada County so that he will have a good feasibility in getting the project approved. With that, I want to jump into the scenarios real quick. In the spreadsheet, that I passed out is essentially a synopsis of some of the comments that Gary Smith has provided to you in the scenario sheets that he provided to Council. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 9 of 17 Nary: Mr. Boyle I don’t mean to cut you off but I guess one of the things – you know that the information we received from Gary Smith we just got today? Boyle: Right. Nary: Mr. Bird isn’t here tonight and probably will be in a couple of weeks. I don’t necessarily want to put Mr. Centers off necessarily either but this is a fairly significant project for the City of Meridian it was the last time it probably will be this time. I don’t want you to waste your time and have to go through this again but I do think I guess for me I would like to have Mr. Bird’s input. I don’t know timing wise how that works for you or your client you wanting to put this off for three or four weeks but one I haven’t had any opportunity to digest what you just handed as, as well as what Mr. Smith sent us. I really would like to have Mr. Bird’s input and involvement in this as well. I would hope he’ll be here within three or four weeks but – so I don’t want to waste your time but I just want you to if you want to give us your spiel tonight you can and we’re really going to want you to come back and talk whenever the rest of us – everybody’s here. What are your thoughts is there a timing issue that is fairly critical? I don’t want to put Mr. Centers behind anymore either. Boyle: What Council day I guess would we be looking at if we were to postpone this again is there a specific date that – Corrie: Well we would be looking at most likely either the 4th or the 11th . It depends upon his recovery. He would probably – four weeks would be a pretty good shot to take however, not foreseeing anything that can come down the pipe. If the Council, Mr. Nary, and I talked to some of the others, they would like to have all of us in on this because this is a very important scenario that you’re doing. If you do it now you won’t have the opportunity to do it again. We’re looking at the 4th or the 11th with all medical procedures following in line. Now that’s the question that we need to have you and Mr. Centers – can you hold off till that? If you can’t you probably will have to anyway not saying that you don’t but if they want all four Council people here then you will be that before (inaudible) anyway. You can come up here Lee if you want to talk to. (Inaudible discussion amongst Council Members) Nary: The 11th is probably the safest bet just because it’s a little further. Corrie: Well knowing what I went through and I was younger than he is it – four to five weeks is necessary to really have the strength. Boyle: I’m back. Clint Boyle again for the record. Yes, I discussed that with Mr. Centers and obviously there – it doesn’t sound like there is going to be any decision tonight. He still would like, since we’re here to just present the scenarios to the Council that’s here, maybe get any feedback on any items that are in particular interest to the members that are here tonight. We’ll try to be Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 10 of 17 brief tonight and then present to the full Council in a month or whatever is appropriate on the – Corrie: Okay it’s up to I mean you’ve got to quarter till so you’ve got 15 minutes now. Boyle: Okay. The scenarios that you have in front of you I’m just going to briefly run through. What we put together are scenarios and we’ve worked again with the staff on these different options as well. They’ve developed some pros and cons from what the staff, also the developer sees, and then I have a spreadsheet just kind of summarizing that. Scenario Number 1 out on this particular piece of property would be the development of the property under the Rural Urban Transition at five-acre lot sizes. That is the standard dimensional standards per Ada County. Essentially, what you would end up with is a subdivision that consists of 30 lots that were five acres each. Now with that as far as the type of service provisions, out there water and sewer would be provided with individual well in individual septic systems on each lot. The ACHD requirements since these are over an acre and a half in size we would be allowed to develop it their rural standards which means that it would just be an asphalt section with barrow ditches on either side rather than your standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. As far as fire protection again, fire protection there would not be any sort of hydrant type system available for fire protection. This particular option minimizes the amount of infrastructure that the developer needs to place in the project. However, with that minimal amount of infrastructure the developer also doesn’t realize is great of a return as he potentially could on something that was more of an urban type development. As far as the pros and cons to that to the City of Meridian, you know Gary Smith has listed some of the pros that we discussed with the City of Meridian. That the City of Meridian review time on the project would be fairly minimal and there really wouldn’t be any cost to the City of Meridian for this. As far as the cons on that, five-acre development obstructs future extension of utilities in the area. It conflicts with the Land Use Plan and the goals and policies for urban type development in that area. The first scenario really I guess is probably the most detrimental out of all of these from the city standpoint as well as the developer doesn’t want to have to perceive in that fashion if he can help it. The next scenario is an RUT cluster. Again, this is allowed with the existing zoning that’s in place. Ada County allows you to cluster lots in an area in one area of the overall site and with that clustering of lots you can have double the number of dwelling units that you normally would get if you developed with five-acre lots. Therefore, we would end up with 30 buildable lots. Based on their standard regulations under the RUT cluster those lot sizes have to be between one acre, an acre, and a quarter. If we clustered those lots each lot would be roughly an acre in size and chew up 30 acres of land then the remainder would be in a reserved open space area, which is somewhat interesting right now because, Ada County is also amending their Zoning Ordinance that would – what essentially would happen there is that open space would be reserved open space until such time as there was a rezone to an urban zone. It actually – the proposed amendment that they have would not even require municipal or community services to be extended which has been the case in the past. Again, 30 lots one acre in size as far as the street sections Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 11 of 17 again with this particular development under the Scenario 2 it still isn’t at the urban type of standards. ACHD would require curb and gutter your standard street section but only require sidewalk on one side of the street. Again, that applies in ACHD’s policy manual for lot sizes between an acre and an acre and a half. As far as fire protection, again with Scenario 2 the lots could be developed with individual well and individual septic systems that’s with the cluster even. Again, fire protection you’re not going to have the hydrant service available with that option either. You will not have – you’ll lose the option of a community well, community water system and community sewer system potentially. Scenario Number 3 this cluster development that Mr. Smith has titled as community services and he’s right. With that one, again this is another scenario that’s allowed by the County Zoning Ordinance by the RUT zone. What it says is that a developer can come in, propose a smaller lot sizes, and come in with a more compact development if it’s in line with what the city wants to see for densities in that area. Again, your Comprehensive Plan signifies this area as three to eight dwelling units per acre for single-family residential. This particular option the developer essentially would come in with a proposal at say eight to 10,000 square foot lots and again it would cluster. It would decrease the amount of land that’s eaten up with the cluster development. With this type of development, the county requires the development to be on a community sewer system. Option Number 3 the difference is you can go to smaller lots in accordance with the cities Comp Plan but you do have to provide a community sewer system. Now they do not specify that you have to have a community water system so again depending on the size of lots that comes in, lets say Mr. Centers decided to utilize this option. He may actually be able to still provide individual wells and again that would be determined based on soil types and the size of lots. Obviously, if you got down to 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots then he would have to go with a community water system that’s Scenario Number 3. Scenario 4 would be a rezone of a portion of the site and that option is what’s in front of you here on the exhibit would be something that would demonstrate that. Essentially, what would happen is there would be a rezone of approximately 17 acres to an R-4 zone and the remainder of the site would remain in an RUT designation. With that rezone the developer again would go in, put in a community well, community sewer system, you would receive your standard curb gutter and sidewalk type of facilities. With this as far as fire protection again with this option if a community well is designated then the developer would just provide a single point draft station, which essentially would be one connection point for the Fire District. If the city were to enter into an agreement which would essentially a first right of your refusal or an option on the well and have the developer construct that so that the city could take that well over in the future if they desired. Then there would be the option there to install your standard hydrant system out in that area as well. That’s kind of briefly Scenario 4, which is an R-4 development now. I just want to expand on that real quick here I think I have about five minutes left is that right? Just to expand on that real quickly the city well option, which has been an option that has been discussed previously with this Council, is an option where the developer would be willing to enter into that agreement with the city. Obviously he needs to – the more lots that he can obtain within this area that more that he can spread his costs out if he’s going to actually construct a well to city type standards. Again, he’s proposing in the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 12 of 17 rezone 39 lots and then the opportunity to come back before the city at a future point and propose further rezones of the property. The final option, which is Scenario 5, would represent the entire build out of the project. Let me just flip my map over. As you can tell this is the most colorful option. This particular proposal and this is just a rough representation of what it may look like would represent the full development of the project. What the developers indicated is with this development it would entail roughly 455 residential lots and if a Preliminary Plat were approved by the county for a development of this nature he would be willing to construct and dedicated the well to the city so there would be no cost to the city for that well. He would also be wiling to dedicate the park area and I just want to point that out. I don’t have my pointer here so maybe I can swing this around. The developer is willing to dedicate in addition to that a park site, which would be in the eastern area of the subdivision. In addition to that, there is an existing easement that is a gas line easement it’s all under ground. He has an 80-foot corridor over that area that he also has proposed as just open space or common lot. He would be willing to also dedicate that to the city so they would actually have a greenbelt pathway connection that would extend from Linder Road and could potentially tie into other areas further north that would give a nice greenbelt pathway right to the park in the east portion of the site. Now the advantage we discussed this with the staff and then that park location that he would be willing to dedicate to the city is somewhat central to the subdivision and there was some discussion that it would function more like a neighborhood park. The real advantage here is since it is on the border of his property on the east side down the road when further development occurs south of Meridian and parcels adjacent to this develop there would be the opportunity to obtain additional park land adjacent to this depending on you know what the city wanted to see. If they wanted that to be a larger park area within this particular area, that access is fairly easy access back to the park on the proposed collector street. That collector street can be modified to run to the park very easily. Again this is another option the – obviously with this proposed project if he came in with a Preliminary Plat there are constraints with the Black Cat Trunk Extension. The developer again realizes that yet he also realizes that he has been in the urban service planning area for Meridian for 10 years now based on the 93’ plan and he just wants to be able to recover some of his costs in the land and then be able to move forward with the project. If he would have come in with something like this with this type of development and the city supported something like this he would enter into the agreements on the well to dedicate – construct and dedicate the well to the city. Enter in agreement for the park site of the potential greenbelt if the city desired it. Again, this would help to mitigate – I noticed the staff indicated that one of the cons was that they wouldn’t receive any park impact fees. Well he would be willing to give them a park area with a greenbelt. Then the other item here is he would also be willing to enter into an agreement for annexation when the city was contiguous which could be recorded on the plat as well as in the CC&R’s and any other agreements for the city. Finally, with this particular option he would be willing to have more of a slow managed growth if the City Council saw fit where he would even be willing to say slow the growth. To where he would only be allowed, to bring in a certain number of lots per year until such a time as either annexed or that Black Cat Trunk were available. Those are the scenarios that are out on the table and I Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 13 of 17 know Gary outlined a lot of the pros and cons that we’ve discussed. I appreciate the staff time that’s gone into this I know they’ve worked on this quite a bit. I’ve had quite a few discussions with them on that and it sounds like we’ll be back in front of you again but just wanted to at least present our case and hopefully get you thinking about the project a little bit. Corrie: Okay. Anybody have any questions right now? Let’s schedule this as a come back time for Pre-Council presentation of March the 11th . Council have any heartburn with that one? Okay great? Boyle: Okay. Corrie: Thank you very much appreciate your – Boyle: Can I just bring up one more point? If the Council had any other issues that they felt they want to discuss it would be nice to kind of know, get some input on what those were. I know we talked about fire protection at the last Pre- Council but if there are any other additional issues we’ve got some time here to check into them. Corrie: Okay I’ll make it (inaudible) centralized that they can bring it to me. I’ll see that you get it as soon as I get it. That will give you a chance to work it all in by that time. If the Council will just bring them to me, I’ll see that you get them that same time. Boyle: I appreciate it. Corrie: We’ll have them all itemized for you. Boyle: Okay thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Item 5. Discussion of City of Meridian Initiated Area of Impact boundary adjustments and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for 8.6 acres at Muirwoods Subdivision, 5.3 acres at Ranchos Los Altos Subdivision, and 8.64 acres east of Bremerton Subdivision: Corrie: The next item is the discussion of the Meridian Initiated Area of Impact boundary adjustments and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. I guess that would be you Brad. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening Mayor and Members of the Council. You should have received a memo from myself dated January 31st that kind of summarizes the background on this. The Public Work’s Departments of City of Meridian and Boise City met several months ago to discuss several properties along our eastern area of city impact boundary. Which ones may or may not be serviceable by one or the other jurisdictions. That’s sort of the origination for Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 14 of 17 these specific parcels that I was going to talk to you about tonight. The Boise City Council – we have two properties and I’ll just kind of point them out here on the screen. We have Overland Road on the north side and then Victory is in the middle of the screen – ***End of Side One*** Hawkins-Clark: -- Eagle Road is on the left and Cloverdale is the right boundary here. When the area of city impact boundary was created in 93’ they basically just took a quarter mile from Cloverdale a quarter mile west and took a straight line at that quarter mile mark. Essentially, what was created was a couple of areas where the existing subdivisions were included in Meridian this Muirwood Subdivision is approximately a little over eight acres. There are several lots in there that are already being serviced by Boise City. They are part of Muirwood Subdivision a majority of which are of the lots are already annexed and in Boise City. The discussion there was just to – City of Meridian would release that 8.2 acres from our area of city impact and Boise City would then add it to theirs. There’s a portion of Ranchos Los Altos it’s just about a lot and a half. It’s a little over a five-acre lot. It’s a five-acre lot subdivision all of which is in our area of impact except for that one lot. Again because of that straight line it kind of chopped off that lot so that would be included potentially in Meridian’s area of impact. Then Bremerton Subdivision is another Ada County Subdivision south of Victory Road about a quarter mile. There are 8.6 acres that the Public Works in their analysis looked at likely sewering to Boise City instead of Meridian. That would be another parcel release by Meridian. Boise City Council did discuss these or they had them on an agenda recently and generally aware and agree that staffs are in agreement that the city who’s got the area of impact should go ahead and move ahead first with an application. If the Council is comfortable with moving ahead with these, we’ll prepare an application to release them. Boise City would proceed with the five-acre one that would come into Meridian. I did talk briefly with Mr. Nichols about the process on this and we are in agreement that the Comprehensive Plan would not need to be amended for the two that we’re releasing since we would not need to designate a new classification or anything we can just adjust the area of impact. On the property that we would be taking in, we would of course need to amend our Land Use Map to designate it as a single-family residential in the Comp Plan so we would probably run that one through. There are a couple of others further north that are also divided by a property but because they are less than 300 feet in width we’re allowed through the State Code to just at upon development that can go one way or the other whichever city has the greater half of a split parcel. As long as it’s less than 300 feet, we don’t have to do a formal area of impact adjustment. Anyway, we’re just looking for basically a nod one way or another from Council on staff proceeding with these applications. Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 15 of 17 Nary: Brad maybe I missed what you said on this 42 acres here that was already okayed by Boise? Hawkins-Clark: No, no we are just at this point in time talking about the Muirwood Subdivision and the property east of Bremerton. Nary: These three. Hawkins-Clark: Those would – right. Nary: So currently the impact boundary line would – it goes straight down here and then we were basically wanting it to jog this direction, then back this direction over here and then jog that way. Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. Nary: Now are these the properties that I called you about in December because they were on the Boise Agenda at the time or is this a different one? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Nary: Has this one been discussed with Boise then this 42-acre piece here? Hawkins-Clark: I have had just one discussion with Boise City staff Al Simmons and he is in the process of doing some research on their end as to confirming the issues with their Public Work’s Department. Certainly we wouldn’t have any action on that until they would de-annex and then adjust their area of impact should they go that direction. He has not given a firm direction yet. Nary: I know we’ve had some discussions about that 300-foot issue. Is that – do you feel that’s pretty well decided? I know there’s a state law that talks about the 300-foot difference when it’s on either side of the boundary line. It’s not – I guess it hasn’t always been clear to me maybe it’s clearer to Mr. Nichols as to when it’s on the 300-foot issue and whether or not we have to go through any of this adjustment at all or it can just be done at the staff level or we’re just not worried about that tonight. That’s just on the other areas north is that right? Hawkins-Clark: Yes I was referring to just two properties that are north. They are about an acre a piece and it’s you know if you have a single piece of property under singe ownership for example this piece here. Should the line come bisect it north and south if less than 300 was in our area then the whole property would go to Boise City. I’ve not heard anyone question that interpretation of that. In this case you know we’re dealing with smaller lots that aren’t bisected they’re just completely outside of the area. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Any other discussion? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 16 of 17 Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would make a motion that maybe we can between us and Boise get this on a list in a year, year and a half (inaudible) we’ve been through enough we should be able to get this done. I would move that we release those two pieces – those two parcels that are within our area of impact so that they can go to Boise, the County, and the rest of the process but that we approve the removal of the sections that are part of the Muirwood Subdivision. Then the sections as part of the Bremerton Subdivision to be released to the Boise area of impact. Do we need to do anything regarding the Ranchos Las Altos accepting that yet or do we need to wait till Boise releases that or would you like just to put that on the record now that we will accept it when it’s released? Hawkins-Clark: Mayor and Council I would recommend we just wait until we receive the notice that Boise City has acted on their – Nary: Okay so my motion was simply then to release the 8.29 acres of Muirwood Sub and the 8.64 acres of Bremerton Sub to be released to move to the Boise area of impact. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion been made and second is there any further discussion? Hearing none roll call vote Mr. Berg. Roll Call: Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 6. Discussion of Administrative Lot Split Ordinance: Item 7. Discussion of Open Vision Fencing: Corrie: Council do you want to continue with 6 and 7 or it’s kind of up to you? Nary: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: It looks to me if it would be all right that our agenda tonight is fairly short. If it would be alright with staff I would ask that we simply move 6 and 7 to the end of our Regular Agenda and then that would give us a couple of minutes to break before we could start the Regular Meeting on time if that would be all right. Corrie: Staff any comments? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting February 4, 2003 Page 17 of 17 Nary: Being that I would move that we move Items 6 and 7 from our Pre-Council Agenda to the end of our Regular Agenda of our Regular Meeting. They would become Items 12 and 13. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay motion been made and seconded any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor say aye? All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: With that I will entertain a motion then to close the Pre-Council Meeting and Agenda. De Weerd: So moved. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion and made to second. All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes motion carried. We will be adjourned and we’ll be back here in about one minute. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:59 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK