Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 12-16 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 1 of 20 Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Bill Nary, Cherie McCandless. Others Present: Bill Nichols; Gary Smith; Anna Powell; Doug Strong; Brad Watson; Kenny Bowers; Will Berg Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird O Mayor Robert Corrie De Weerd: I’ll call the Pre-Council Meeting to order. It’s Tuesday, December 16, 2003 at 6:00. We will start with roll. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird Bird: I move we adopt the revised agenda that was revised on December 15, 2003, as published. McCandless: Second. Nary: Second. Bird: Was that Nary or McCandless? Nary: Take a number. De Weerd: It’s been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Report by Walt Morrow from The Golf Course Committee: Marrow: I won’t take a lot of your time as I know you are really busy this evening. As you well know, you appointed as a committee to look into the Golf Course. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 2 of 20 The charge from the Council was to make an assessment of the assets that were at the Golf Course, how they could be improved. The challenge to begin with was that in the greatest learning curve for us on the committee was that we anticipated by the USGA report that we would have some sort of standard by which to compare this Golf Course against what it should be. The reality is that a USGA report compares a golf course against itself, so there are no standards out there that are on a regional or a national basis by which you can compare what we have in the operation of this golf course to. Taking the USGA report and your challenge, we looked at all the facets of the golf course and of the USGA report. We broke them down basically into things that were challenged as personal property and things that were real property and looked at it from the standpoint of a landlord tenant relationship. What we did as a committee, is we took each one of those items where there were recommendations by the USGA report and an example would be the greening of the golf course. Last spring we had exceptional rains and we had a great opportunity to see that the problem with the golf course in terms of the sprinkler systems was inadequate coverage because at one point in time in early spring we had a totally green golf course. That lent great credence to the analysis that this sprinkler system is insufficient. The first nine, or what was historically the first nine now is approximately 25 years old, at its end of its useful life for various reasons the new nine in many areas were deficient with respect to coverage. Some of that was due to changing boundaries with respect to subdivision ground that was donated or changed and then so on and so forth. The committee’s feeling is that the first main problem to address was the greenness of the golf course and consequently, the sprinkler system. We went down through the menu of issues raised by the USGA report and then had discussions amongst the committee about the importance of each issue in terms of trying to look at the overall picture of the golf course and what our vision, or the Council’s vision may very well be in terms of what they want to see. With each of those items and if you look on Page 22 we have addressed the items pretty much in the area of importance, that we felt needed to be addressed. The first thing was the irrigation system. We also then put down approximately the sums of money that we thought that it would take to fix those things at plus or minus ten percent factor. If you will look, the irrigation system, we used 1 to 1.5 million. We assigned that because it is real property and it is a key component in terms of setting the golf course up to whatever the standard that the City Council may want to have with the golf course. The assumption was is that the standard might be that it be green through April through the middle of October in its entirety. In order to do that then the sprinkler system needs to be redone. The number that we assign was 1 million to 1.5 million. That was based on the experiences that some of the members of the committee with respect to golf course and golf course sprinkler systems. A maintenance building was talked about in the USGA report. Once again, that is real property. We felt, in this case, it was a responsibility of the landlord to provide that. In this case, that would be the City of Meridian. We used a 45-dollar square foot factor for that which is a reasonably accurate number for a building of that use is 150,000 dollars. New greens on 1, 6, 7 and 9 again those were alluded to in the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 3 of 20 USGA report is 8,000 dollars a piece, real property. The original greens apparently ended up with more slope than the USGA thought they should have. That was an arbitrary decision based on the original design probably is more playable for the better golfer, but for what our golfers are today, probably a little too challenging. We showed those at 8,000 dollars a piece. Rebuilding bunkers on the new nines and there was ten of them -- 2,000 dollars a piece -- 20,000 dollars. Then we get down into the things that were truly personal property that should be the responsibility of the tenant. It would be the responsibility of any tenant in a property that you or I might lease on a residential basis and those tended to be maintenance items, cart paths, again that’s a real property issue. We allotted 50,000 dollars for that and trees, kind of a combination of both – obviously, carts, clubhouse maintenance and miscellaneous equipment and equipment rental. That all belongs to the tenant. New restroom there is a need for a restroom. We did some research into through the City in terms of an available sewer and water. We were able to find one location that that would work. We spec that at 75,000 dollars it’s a real property issue again. That would be the responsibility of the City. The committee felt that this was a good breakdown and a good guideline based on the types of things that would need to be done to make the golf course come up to whatever standard you as a council set. The feeling is very strong that if you are going to set a standard there has to be a means for a tenant to maintain that standard and know what he or she is working towards. The committee structured this report in that direction so that the City Council would have the standard by which to judge the performance of the tenant. The tenant would have the standard by which he or she had to conform to so going in they knew what was expected of them, with respect to financing; several ways of financing. The general view point of the committee was that should the Council wish to pursue these improvements that the Council would appoint a committee with a council member sharing that committee to research financing and the options that are available to a council or community. With respect to the comparison to other golf courses in the valley. The narrow tightness of this golf course can’t compare itself to something like Ridge Crest or Broadmore or one of the golf courses that is wide open. It’s more comparable to Indian Lakes or the Plantation, where you have a narrow confined golf course, which makes it somewhat more difficult to play for the average golfer than a wide open golf course. That’s one of the things – or one of the issues that we work under and it’s a handicap for the general weekend golfer. Part of the challenge on part of the Council is to resist comparisons of this golf course that come from golf courses that don’t have the same restrictions with respect to play ability that we do. That’s not something that we can change or fix. We have to work with what we have and so the committee’s goal was to try to give you the options that were available to you as a council so that you may make a decision in terms of what direction that you want to pursue and therefore, by pursuing that come to the standards that you want and then give the tenant his or her option of being able to meet those standards. Any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 4 of 20 Bird: I have none. De Weerd: There are no questions. Marrow: Thank you. De Weerd: I think there are a lot of questions, but I don’t know if everyone has had a chance to read the report. Shaun, did you get a report? Marrow: We have here in the box. De Weerd: You have one in the box. Marrow: We have a substantial, greater number of reports that were just delivered within the last 15-20 minutes, for those who want more reports or haven’t had a report. De Weerd: Okay. Marrow: I think the initial report was just the five of you that received reports. The committee all had two go-a rounds at the first rough draft, the final draft and then the final report. That was open to comment by each of the committee members at all three stages. Our final draft was printed without comment by any members of the committee you have now plenty of reports and we have the avenue now of being able to generate more reports as they might be needed. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I have a question that might not be necessarily just for Mr. Marrow, but what’s our timetable here to act. I mean, we have a - - I like the report. I think it has outlined some of the issues that we sort of knew that were out there about the condition, the golf course maintenance, what needs to be done. Obviously, we need to have a lot of discussion about the source of funds and how that was done, but is there a timetable that we need to act. Obviously, status quo isn’t going to maintain itself forever. Marrow: No. That decision is entirely up to you. The challenge of the committee was to give you as clearly and concisely as possible what we saw the deficiencies were, the potential ways to resolve those deficiencies and then it’s up to you folks to decide how you want to go about it and what you want to do. Nary: Okay. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 5 of 20 De Weerd: Mr. Strong, do you have any comments? Bird: I know he hasn’t seen it. De Weerd: Have you seen it? Strong: I have not. De Weerd: Okay. Well, it likes this is something that we need to set when the new council is on and maybe have a Pre-Council or workshop discussion and start exploring some of those. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe that one of our new Council Members coming on was a co- chairman with Walter on this. Marrow: That’s correct. Bird: And I did sit on the committee. I was a nonvoting member. De Weerd: Okay. Well, good. You guys can set up a timeframe and lead the discussion. Bird: Okay. We can do it. Marrow: Anything else? De Weerd: Thank you. Marrow: You bet. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay Item Number 4 is the Solid Waste franchise moratorium by Mr. Sedlecek. Oh, by Mr. Freeman. Oh good, an attorney we can (inaudible) time to. Item 4. Solid Waste Franchise Moratorium Discussion by Steve Sedlecek with SSC: Freeman: I got to do something here. I am going to charge him. Madam President, Council Members. It is my pleasure to be here this evening. You should have all received a copy of my letter that I sent on behalf of my client, Sanitary Service requesting that the City issue a moratorium on the issuance of Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 6 of 20 new solid waste franchises until after June 1, 2004. I believe my letter pretty much summarizes our position. I am available to answer any questions. De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nichols, where are we at in the part that we are going to do in regards to the ordinances? Nichols: Madame President, Members of Council, we prepared a draft revision to the solid waste franchise ordinance in terms of standards that franchises would have to make or to meet in order to have a franchise because your current ordinance is not a sole source franchise. It is not an exclusive franchise ordinance. Your agreement with Sanitary Services exclusive, but the ordinance itself was not. Looking at the City’s obligation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community and some of the past problems that were experienced with previous contractors, not with SSC, we might add, but with previous contractors, we developed an ordinance with some standards in it. Then forwarded that to Mr. Freeman and his client for their review and comment. I believe that they feel like it is a good start, but, that there are lots of other areas that need to be addressed and the time that it would take to address them was more lengthy than anticipated. So, we have done, I think, a good start but we don’t have a finished product that the contractors are comfortable with. Freeman: Madam President, Members of Council if I may just follow up on what Bill said. We have reviewed the proposed draft that Bill has been working on. One of the difficulties is that even - - I apologize for my voice, I have got a bit of a cold or something like everybody else does. One of the problems is that even though the City’s ordinance appears to be nonexclusive or – not provide for an exclusive solid waste franchise. Like Bill said, the contract specifically addresses that issue. There are also regulations and other ordinances that reference - - I guess that make it clear that the intention of the parties back when the franchises was awarded, Sanitary Service said it would indeed be an exclusive franchise. For instance, there -- the person, who is the City’s solid waste hauler sits on the Board of Regulation to set the rates, doesn’t say - - so, if you bring another person in that would presume two or three. If you read the statutes and ordinances as a whole, it is pretty clear that everybody was dealing with the understanding that this was an exclusive franchise. Then this Plummer vs. City of Fruitland case comes up and the Supreme Court decides in that case that they hold that solid waste that a city does not have the power to grant an exclusive solid waste franchise. That sort of sets the whole thing into the problem we have now. In addition, I really see there are three reasons why the City should consider passing this ordinance, or this resolution for a moratorium as soon as possible. First is that we are not done. As Bill said, we still have more to do on revisions to the ordinance. It’s not just the solid waste ordinance, but there are revisions to other regulations and other ordinances as well as to the contract with Sanitary Service that has to be completed and they are just not done yet. Excuse me. The next issue is this Plummer vs. City of Fruitland case has - - the Supreme Court has decided to rehear that case and no one can Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 7 of 20 predict whether the Court will reverse that portion of the decision or issue a different decision, but that is what they are being asked to do. I am not involved in that case at all. Bill probably knows more about where that sits than I do, but the Supreme Court has decided to rehear that case. The rehearing occurred November 3rd of this year. We talked to the Clerk’s Office at the Supreme Court and they say it takes approximately six months normally – six months average for the Court to issue a decision. The way I look at it, if the Court reverses the Plummer decision and says that a City does have the power to issue an exclusive solid waste franchise then all the changes that we make to these ordinances are going to create problems for my client and for the City. In other words, we have to change this relationship between Sanitary Service and the City through these ordinances and through amendments of the franchise agreement and if the only reason we are doing that is because of the Plummer decision, so if it gets reversed we’ve got a problem. We have got to go back then and put those ordinances the way they were. Another issue is that it’s my understanding that there will be or has started and Steve knows a bit more about this than I do from an industry standpoint that the legislature is being corded and being lobbied to address this issue this year and the next legislative session. We are not coming in and asking for a moratorium on new solid waste franchises because there might be a law passed, but you know combined with these other factors, I think it’s a sufficient basis and it’s something that the Council should look at. One thing that I will say is that the manner -- the ordinance -- the resolution that was passed previously, some people might say that you are just doing another ordinance or another moratorium. That’s correct, but understand that the prior one expired on September 1st . So right now there isn’t a moratorium. We are not just putting moratorium after moratorium. There is no statute that I could find that would prohibit the City from issuing a moratorium in this respect. I just think it gives everybody a little more breathing room. When you talked to Steve he is real encouraged made a mistake and they are going to recognize it and change that statute. If not, then the legislature is going fix it. In any event, the way the moratorium that we are requesting would be similar to the one that you placed in effect back, I believe, in April or May it provided and agreed person with the right to petition the City for a hearing in 30 days if they felt they were agreed and then this matter come before Council. I think that provides sufficient protection to anybody that may come in and ask for a new franchise. There hasn’t been any, as I understand, there hasn’t been any yet that have come in. We just think that it’s prudent at this time for all those reasons for the City to pass that ordinance and again, we never know when a new - - no one knows I guess other than the person submitting it if and when another solid waste franchise request will be made to the City of Meridian. Since this Council passed the prior one and is in place for at least one more meeting or however more you are going to have we would prefer that if we had -- if it was a perfect world we’d like this Council to make that decision and pass another moratorium as soon as possible. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 8 of 20 Bird: I have none. Nary: Madam President. Mr. Freeman, I think the only perfect world must be what Mr. Sedlecek is thinking that everybody is going to fix it (inaudible) to the legislature, but what -- I guess I don’t really see the necessity of reissuing this particular type of moratorium. I mean, I think it was sort of sketchy, a little sketchy anyway. Even if another franchisee were to come along we would have to hear it, we’d have to award it, you’d be here saying we have a contract that makes it exclusive, so Council don’t grant it, you know let them go make their legal (inaudible) some other way, if you don’t. I guess, I don’t see what harm it would do your client if we simply just don’t do anything. Freeman: Madam President, Councilman Nary. It’s not necessarily harm to m client that I am concerned about or that we are concerned about. If a new solid waste franchisee or prospective franchisee comes to the City and files – makes a request then you have to evaluate that based upon your current ordinance. Your current ordinance is a problem if that kind of request comes in because it didn’t contemplate the matters set forth in the former decision. I believe, you’ll be in a situation where you will have to evaluate the next franchisee before you completed the process of having an ordinance in place that’s really supposed to set forth what the requirements and conditions are. I think it makes it difficult for the City to make the proper decision and they may have to grant a franchise that isn’t appropriate because they don’t have the ordinance in place. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don’t know whether or not Mr. Nichols or -- I guess, see what you think as well, Mr. Freeman, but, I mean, the court’s haven’t always been very -- because of other cities and other types of moratoriums, not this particular type, but have been very apprehensive about this continuation of moratoriums. I guess, that’s what concerns me a little bit. Secondarily, I mean, if we are going base it upon the fact that we are drafting an ordinance and we are in the process, you know, is that going to be a problem that the processing seems to be taking quite a long time just to draft an ordinance regarding standards and that a court is not going to be very forgiving of that and maybe not going to really support us on that. I guess, ultimately, Mr. Nichols is going to have to answer that for us, but I wonder what you think and Mr. Nichols can tell us what he thinks. Freeman: Councilman Nary, as far as the question about the success of moratoriums I have spoken to Bill about that and have done a little research and as you are aware of there is one provision in the Idaho Statutes that addressed the City’s right to issue moratorium, however it’s contained in the Land Use Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 9 of 20 Planning Act and it’s limited to, I think, moratorium’s on permits or similar moratoriums. There is case law from other states, other jurisdictions where cities have tried to issue moratorium after moratorium and that’s been denied. In this situation, I think it’s -- we have a different situation here because Number 1, the prior moratorium has expired and so we are not just tagging them on. There has been at least a three and one half month period where there has been no moratorium in place and I don’t think we will ever need to request another one. While this time frame is going on, we are not going to sit back and do nothing until the anticipated June 1st date. We will continue to work on other revisions, but it’s more difficult. I think probably, I can’t speak for city attorneys, but I would bet that most councils and most cities, most municipalities if not all in the State of Idaho assume before this case that they had the right to grant exclusive franchise. That assumption you can see when you read through -- it was evident in Meridian when you read through the ordinances and the contract that was awarded. I just think that we need some more time to address it and resolve it. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird Bird: I would agree with Mark on the thing that I don’t think we are adding on to or doing a moratorium because the other one resolution that we passed last spring has now ran out and has been a couple of months. I see no reason that we can’t and I would be willing to make a motion right now to put on a moratorium on solid waste collection until June 1st . In the same time, instruct the attorneys and contractor that we have a contract with to get this ordinance before the Council in April or an appropriate time, so that we don’t have to have these moratoriums all the time. I am like Mr. Nary, I don’t like to see moratoriums coming in all the time, but I have no problem with doing that and if we need to we can certainly do it right now. I think we should because I think Plummer Fruitland has some people thinking and we are a big enough city that it won’t be a private individual coming in with a pick up. Nichols: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, Members of Council a couple of additional points. When the moratorium was first in act and the resolution was adopted Fruitland had not petitioned for reconsideration. We didn’t know if it was – and then even after they did petition for it didn’t know if it would be granted. I think it was in August that that petition for reconsideration was granted. That was a subsequent event and that may have taken some of the heat out from under the pot so to speak when that reconsideration was granted. With regard to the moratorium, I think that if you are going to put in standards for franchisees, moratorium protects the City from this standpoint –along this (inaudible) is that Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 10 of 20 the application determines the law that applies to the application and so if somebody walks in here tomorrow and says I want to have a solid waste franchise and we don’t have standards then how are we going to evaluate that? If we have a moratorium in place that they have to ask for a hearing to be heard, it gives you the ability to say okay, yes, we can adopt some standards before they can apply, so that we don’t have a situation where somebody applies and no there are no standards by which their application would be judged. So that’s an advantage and I -- if it’s your choice to do so, you could approve a resolution that’s worded the same as the previous one, except a new date of June 1, 2004. That would allow that right of due process for someone to challenge the application to them. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, do you have a motion? Bird: I would make a motion that we have a franchise moratorium for Solid Waste Collections and have the attorney word it the same as the previous one that expired in September and have this one expire June 1, 2004. Nary: Seconded. De Weerd: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded to instruct the attorney to draw up the resolution extending -- or not extending – to place a moratorium for the solid waste franchise ordinance and bring that back -- when? Bird: January 6th . Nary: January 6th . Bird: It expires June 1, 2004. De Weerd: To expire June 1, 2004. Okay. Do we want a roll call? Roll call: Bird, aye; Nary, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 5. Discussion with ZGA on space study: Presented De Weerd: Now Shaun you did get a copy of that, correct? Okay. So, we all have had an opportunity to read the draft and I assume everyone has questions in hand and we are ready for your comments. Simmonds: Thank you, Madam President and members of the Council. Rather than go through the entire report here, whether everybody did have a chance to look through it or not there has been an awful lot done in a short period of time here and I know the Council is busy, but if you have had a chance to look at any Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 11 of 20 of it we would be happy to entertain questions or (inaudible). I think that in going through this there are kind of three parts to it. There is an update of the previous program/document that was generated for the City Hall. There is a listing of program spaces and then there is also a kind of an attempt to illustrate some different options or directions for development of the City Municipal Center. So, anyway, given that if you would like to speak about any one of these things put together in the report we would be happy to do so or we will just try and answer the questions that you have and more specifically, anything that is not addressed in this report that the Council would like to see addressed we would like to hear that too. De Weerd: Now, Mike, there are certain assumptions made and certain questions that still you need further direction on and I guess those would be the questions that we now have an opportunity to discuss. Do you want to bring up those areas that you would like to get feedback on? Simmonds: Madam President, members of the Council, yes. A couple of things. There are, of course, a number of departments and tallies in here for those various departments and that information was gleaned through discussions with the various directors of those departments and other city personnel. I think that in trying to quantify exactly what those need to be that’s one thing we would look for to the city as a whole in giving us some direction as to whether that meets the expectation in Council’s opinion of an ultimate population for city government in the year 2025 or whether it may be deficient in that respect. Then I think beyond the pages in here to describe the various departments there was a section, I believe it was in the back of Section 4 where we simply tried to list some different approaches to a city hall project in terms of volume and land area. There are four examples here that are very generic, as yet. It was our understanding there has not been a specific site that has been selected yet, so in an attempt to try and provide some basis for possibly selecting direction we went through that and hypothetically tried to establish four different approaches. We will also have the counterpart listed under the cost assumptions as well. I guess the other part of our question would be if there is anything there that is too vague or not clear enough, if there is additional information that the Council would be seeking relative to those scenarios, or whether that is even something that you want to see in this report. We went a little bit farther than just the program statement because it seemed like part of the question hadn’t been answered if we didn’t go a little bit farther and at least quantify, if you do need to site at 2.5 acres. What does that represent as terms of the city block? What does that represent in terms of a three-story building or two-story building and what does that represent in terms of costs? So, I guess that would be the other part of this thing that we would look for is some direction or some additional comments. De Weerd: I don’t know if that particular part was included in the packet that we gave them. We gave them where the (inaudible) and the executive summary that you did identified specific departments that would traditionally and logically Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 12 of 20 be part of the new city hall. Then you also raised some questions on some of those functions that we are not sure if they should be in city hall, administratively or what. Those are items that we do need further discussion on. Then there were some other non-city related functions that were brought up throughout their interview process that they would like to get some feedback on. Certainly, we need more feedback on that so we know how much square footage we are looking at building for. Correct? Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with you whole heartedly and I think we need to go to the point of Mike needs to tell us how many acres, square footage or whatever we need if we go three stories, four stories, our total of square footage with parking and everything for what we are going to need. Because that is going to determine where we locate downtown. I am in agreement with you on that. I think that there is some follow up stuff that we all need to do. I haven’t had a chance to read that as thorough as I need to. I think you need to come up with how much and you know, how much square foot do we need, how big of a piece of property do we need. Will a city block do it. If we go three stories, four stories, two stories, whatever. That’s the answer we need, I think, along with the space. De Weerd: Well, Keith, I think that we need to get them some direction so they can start narrowing what the actual space needs will be. Even as far as down the road. Will we need room for legal? Do we want fire administration there? Would we want administrative offices or sewer and water? You know, a police? Most likely not. Do we want a building that would be easily added on to? Do we want it all shell and (inaudible). Maybe one floor undeveloped. You know, those are the kind of things they are looking for so they can give us a more comprehensive report. Bird: I agree with you 100 percent. I think that’s a very legitimate question that we need to get back with. Simmonds: Madam President, Members of the Council. De Weerd: Mike. Simmonds: We can identify some of those departments for you for discussion and probably the round number that we are looking at relative to whatever adjustments are made in the program is about 40,000 square feet. At this point, that does not include departments that were Ada County Departments, like Motor Vehicles and those spaces that we had originally included in the program document the first time around. At this point, there was, I think, some uncertainty as to whether the county would be involved in that or not. Certainly easy to Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 13 of 20 incorporate, but that 40,000 square foot figure that we show in here is a build out for 25 includes all the departments that have been listed here. We did make some assumptions and there have been some discussions with some of the various departments. Water Department, for example, one of the questions we had was would there be any value in having administrative personnel in city hall only. I guess that would apply to the Fire Department, to the Wastewater Treatment Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. There has been some discussion about having the directors and their assistants and some of their administrative staff possibly located in the city hall. There has been some other feedback relative to how they interact with their staff and whether it’s better for them to be onsite with their staff or whether it’s better to be a part of the city administration. So, I think those departments we are looking for some feedback. Then relative to the - - one of the departments we are still trying to get a little bit of a handle on is the technology department and focusing on what their needs would be over the future. You will see in the space analysis that they could consume an awful lot of space. Some of that we will have to do probably with the services of the city. We will outsource different cities and municipalities and outsource various kinds of IT services and then they would manage those in-house. Some organizations do it all in-house, so I think that’s – for us that’s a big question mark at this point as to how much of the IT services will be retained by the City and how much of that ultimate personnel growth is something we need to plan for. I think the last department that we had questions about had to do with the legal department. In the first go around we included space in the study for the legal department to be housed in the city hall. Understanding now the relationship that the City has with Boise and with the outsourcing of some of those legal services, we were uncertain as to whether there would be a need over a long period of time to have the entire legal department housed within the city hall. Some of those as we understand it, some of the criminal legal work would likely be housed in the Police Department as one option. As for the civil side of that we are not sure how that may or may not grow. So I think that is a little bit of a question mark in terms of how we plan for that. Of course, the other thing to keep into mind too is that 40,000 square feet is not something that we need today so there is some time as those departments change over the course of their growth, there is some time to figure out maybe how these things could change or evolve if we don’t have the answers for those right now. De Weerd: And these all play a factor into the steps that we need to take to move forward with this project. So, we do need to start getting more detailed on that and I hoped that you would come prepared tonight to do that. So, I would like to know also from you all when we want to meet and give those details so we can start moving towards a plan on this. Mr. Bird. Bird: I for one believe that to be an efficient city that anybody that collects -- it’s like Parks and Recreation, sure it would be nice to keep it down there where they are at, but their administration needs to be there. They are collecting fees from people all the time and the people come into one place, one source and pay. I Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 14 of 20 believe that you look at any city that has all their administrative roles other than police and fire under the same roof they are more efficient. Not that we aren’t efficient, but we run around the whole town to get to the different places. I mean, if we want to go to Planning & Zoning we run down there. If we want to put a team in a baseball league we run over on Bower Street. If we want to pay our water bill we run to Idaho Street. We need one place to do all that and I think that’s what you have figured in. This is what we had said in 1997 when you did the original one. Surprisingly, we come out with about the same square footage. Simmonds: Pretty close. De Weerd: So, what are our next steps on this? Do you want a chance to look at it in greater detail, get those comments back so we can get them to ZGA? Shaun do you have any comments at this point? Wardle: I do not at this time, but certainly do look forward to the opportunity to either summarize with the Council in written form. Would that help potentially if we could have a discussion and get it to you in written form or would you like another meeting? I guess that’s my question. De Weerd: Well, it would be nice if we could get our comments, our initial comments to ZGA in written form via email or however, so they can compile it into a final report. I don’t know if – staff have you had an opportunity to see this draft? Powell: Madame President, I have not. I was just going to ask the Public Works Director. No he hasn’t. De Weerd: Okay, I did ask Will to give that to the Council, so we could have some of the initial discussions on administrative offices and that sort of thing and consolidating. To me some of the questions that they have brought up in their executive summary, but we will get those off to you as well. These other issues, Council, I guess if you could get your comments back to ZGA so that they can start working on a final draft. Is that the point we are at? Nary: Madame President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think it probably isn’t the point that we are at. I do think that we do probably – it would be helpful if – it seems like that we would be sort of arguing against our self without getting some department input, as to their comments as well. I think that after we have all had the opportunity to provide the comments to ZGA, then I think we need to have a work discussion to have that discussion so that we can get a much more definitive plan of where we are going. Because I think we all will have comments that are going to be different. ZGA is going to Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 15 of 20 tell us that four of you want it this way and two of you want it that way and a couple of other people want it totally different than that. So, at some point somebody – the group has to make a decision to say this is what we are going to do. This is where we are going. This is the how big of space we need before we start looking at design and everything else. I think that’s probably, hopefully something we can do – De Weerd: -- next month. Nary: -- yes, sometime in January. I think that if we can get these comments in then we can have a more meaningful discussion. De Weerd: Well and I would hope that, you know, I talked to Kenny about the administrative side on fire and so I know his feelings on that and I would hope that the liaisons would get with their departments and get a better feel for the direction that they are coming from so as we give comments back to ZGA we can speak not just from a personal perspective, but also an educated perspective in finding out what the departments are saying. But, I would like to do this in more of a workshop form and not necessarily a pre-council so we can all have an opportunity to really communicate the department responses and what our initial reactions are as well. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: When would there be a department head meeting in January? They are weekly, is that correct or every two weeks? Second and fourth. So we would want to have this at least after the department head meeting in January, so that they have an opportunity to – obviously, I don’t think we want to have 15 people trying to have comment – and I think we will have a very lengthy meeting if we do it that way. It would be helpful that at the department head meeting they could formulate a generalized position. There may be some individual-ness to it, but a generalized position with the department heads on their comments so we could have that as part of the discussion after that, sometime after the second or third week in January. Is that practical? Or would we be better off after the second department head meeting? De Weerd: I would – personally, I would like to start moving on this. I think we are getting to a point where we can talk it to death and you know I would like you all to get with your departments and get their feedback on that level so we can get our comments to ZGA and then that gives an opportunity for the department heads to talk at the first meeting in January and maybe the third week we can set a special workshop prior to – well, let’s see the third week we have with Ada County in our pre-council Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 16 of 20 Nichols: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, you don’t have to have land use hearings on that night if we don’t already have something set for that evening and so you could simply clear the decks for this particular discussion in workshop format unless there is already something that’s been scheduled for that particular meeting. De Weerd: Thank you. I know Will has said our January is starting to fill up very nicely, but Mr. Berg, do we have anything? Berg: January 20th . De Weerd: That January 20th . Bird: No, it wouldn’t be the twentieth. It would be the sixth – yes, it would be the 20th , would be the third one. De Weerd: If you could look that up we can maybe set a date towards the end of this meeting and we will let you know Mike. But, if you could get your comments to ZGA by the end of next week, by Christmas, is that – Wardle: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I was just going to ask if as far as the meeting time if we could set a time where potentially the new Council might have an opportunity to meet with the department heads that they will be liaisons to and have this very discussion as a precursor to any future activities within the department that might give the department heads an opportunity to have seen the report and new Council an opportunity to review that and then review it with the liaison and then bring it back at some time. De Weerd: Okay. January 20th , would that give you enough time? Wardle: That’s the question I am asking. Certainly I think I could get up to speed that fast. De Weerd: We would hope so. Thank you. Will if you can check on the schedule for January 20th and even if we need to do a little bit of business that would already be there we could have that afterwards. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 17 of 20 Berg: Sure. Madam President I have the draft agenda for the twentieth right here and we do have continued public hearings, Kessler is one, if you remember and a couple other plats and annexations. So, it’s just like a regular meeting and we just have it that far set in advance. Nary: Maybe January 27th might be better. Berg: The 20th is also the Pre-Council for the Ada County Commissioners. De Weerd: Well, it would be good to have that conversation with the Commission as well if they have any known needs, space needs as well. Berg: Okay. I would to suggest just setting up maybe a separate meeting so you can just discuss one item and not be focused with other things of an agenda that you have to deal with. I also have a question for Mike if this document is electronic in nature that I could get it to department heads so that we – they could look at the whole document and their particular section and all the other concerns. (Inaudible) Simmonds: Just confirming so I don’t put my foot in my mouth. Yes, so we could send that to you and if that would help it would probably be easier to send that to various departments. De Weerd: We could burn it for all the Council Members too. Simmonds: Sure. Berg: Because I know that Council just got a small little portion and said to refer to that document in their office, but I know this was a busy time of the year to get into their office to read through that. De Weerd: Okay. Simmonds: Madam President, Members of Council in between now and then if there is a need for us to meet with anybody to help the process along or provide additional information or you know expand on what is being provided in the report, we would be happy to do that. De Weerd: Well, if the existing Council – we’ll ask if that they have comments to you by Christmas next week and perhaps it might be advantageous to get together with the two new council members and just bring them up to speed with what you have found and give a summary of this document. Would that be helpful Shaun? Okay and then they can get in touch with the various departments and be prepared for when we do set this workshop. I’ll ask the clerk to find a date during that third week that would be mutual on all the Council Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 18 of 20 members and yourselves that we can get together and have this in a workshop form. Simmonds: That would be great. We look forward to that. De Weerd: Okay. Is Christmas – comments back by Christmas reasonable? Okay. Powell: Madam President, I have just a follow up question – not having seen the report I don’t know if it’s appropriate or not to send it to MDC for comment. De Weerd: No. No, I don’t think so. Powell: Okay. De Weerd: Is there anything else that you would like from us this evening? Simmonds: I don’t think so. I think that if we can move through those final questions, I think most of the program information is going to remain as it is, but some of these other things – these (inaudible) issues are – if we could get some help on those we could bring this to closure pretty quickly. De Weerd: Okay and the sooner you can get that on disc to the clerk he can get it to council so at least they can have all of this information to make their comments on, okay? Simmonds: I would be happy to. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: If you could tell me again what the particular ones you were saying you needed the most comment on. The city attorney, the IT Department – Simmonds: Yes. Nary: And the other departments that would be combined in the city hall. Was that the other one you were – Simmonds: The Water Departments, Wastewater Treatment, which we think we know the answer to that but we want to make sure. The Fire Department and Parks and Recreation Department. I think the question was where the administrative and directors for those departments reside. De Weerd: Who would we want to see daily and who we wouldn’t. Also, you had some questions on the non city uses that is also in that report as well as, I Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 19 of 20 think there is some space questions with the Historical Society and storage of documents and that sort of thing as well. Simmonds: Yes, Madame President. That is correct. The Historical Department or Society was a question. We had a chance to meet with them and kind of find out what they do and how they do it and what their needs would be. Our understanding is they are not a city department at this point. That was a question as where they should be. As for some of these other uses like a retail use or like public meeting uses and those kinds of things, we haven’t yet addressed those specifically in here because some of that will have to do with which direction is selected in terms of overall square footage, site and budget. So I think that whatever space is leftover, how those spaces work with the final program has yet to be determined, but I think that is something we can do pretty quickly once we have these other things answered. De Weerd: Okay, great. Simmonds: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Well, that’s the last item on our Pre-Council meeting. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay, it’s been moved and seconded to adjourn the Pre-Council meeting. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. De Weerd: It’s 6:55 p.m. We will reconvene in five minutes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 20 of 20 ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK