HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 09-16ROLL CALL:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
X WALT MORROW
X GLENN BENTLEY
X MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE
X CHARLIE ROUNTREE
X RON TOLSMA
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 2,1997:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 3,1997:
(APPROVED)
TABLED SEPTEMBER 2, 1997: ORDINANCE #760 - COMMISSIO1
BOAR COMMITTEES: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER B 9
2. TABLED SEPTEMBER 2, 1997: ORDINANCE •+SAFETY
COMMISSION: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 7,1997)
C. TABLED SEPTEMBER 2, 1997: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE
HOLLOW SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (CONTINUE PUBLIG
HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER
u
l TABLED SEPTEMBER PLAT FOR CROSSROADS
••• t.D• • BY
RAMON AND MARILYN YORGASON: (APPROVED)
5. ORDINANCE #773 — MICHENER REZ• (APPROVED)
FINDINGS6. OF 4 AND CONCLUSIONS OF + FOR VARIANCE TO THE
1 FOOT LANDSCAPEB BY ROGERe • E. FAIRVIEW
AVENUE: (APPROVEAPPROVE DECISION)
7. ORDINANCE #774 - CHERRY LANE BAPTIST CHURCH REZONE:
(APPROVED)
li. ORDINANCE 9775 - VACATION OF GENTRY WAY: (TABLED UNTIL
OCTOBER 7,1997)
• ORDINANCE #776 - BUILDING & PLANNING A • ZONING DEPARTMENT:
10. RESOLUTION #166 — AMENDING i•, ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT:
(APPROVED)
MINORU •.. j izAym
t`.
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE FROM JERRY COBLER TO MUHAMMAD SABIHA
ALI - 1155 E. CHATEAU: (APPROVE TRANSFER)
15. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VANGUARD MILITARY
ACADEMY BY VANGUARD MILITARY ACADEMY: (APPROVE FINDINGS;
APPROVE DECISION DENIED)
• • •� • .� • ., •r a • • •.
�♦ �♦ s
17. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USED CAR AND TRUCK
SALES BY CENTENNIAL MOTORS - 225 W. FRANKLIN ROAD: (APPROVE
FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION)
18. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 119,395
SQUARE FOOT MINI -STORAGE UNIT COMPLEX (PHASES 2 - 4 OF THE
EXISTING STORAGE FACILITY) BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - LOT 9,
BLOCK 1 AVEST PLAZA SUBDIVISION: (APPROVE FINDINGS WITH
AMENDED EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD LOCATION; APPROVE DECISION)
19. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION ADVISORY REPORT:
20. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH PARKING
LOT PLAN:
21. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. BID RESULTS FOR TULLY PARK IMPROVEMENTS:
(RE -BID PROJECT)
2. TRANSFER • SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7:
D. WALT BORROW, CITY COUNCILMAN:
9. PROBLEM WITH IRRIGATION DITCH BETWEEN DORIS
BARRETT AND MIKE SCISCOE:
22. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16 1997
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert.
D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Chief
Gordon, John Shipley, Clifford Babbitt, Tammy DeWeerd, Dennis Hammer, Muhammad
Ali, San Fishel, Bob Aldrege, John Wardle, Cheryl Wardle, Dorris Barrett, Keith Bird:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 2.1997:
Corrie: Any corrections or alterations of those minutes? I will entertain a motion for
their approval as written.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Moved and seconded we approve the minutes of the previous meeting held
September 2, 1997, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 3,1997:
Corrie: Any corrections or alterations of those minutes? If not I will entertain a motion for
their acceptance.
Bentley: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the special meeting minutes of
September 3, 1997, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED SEPTEMBER 2, 1997: ORDINANCE NO. 760 — COMMISSIONS
BOARDS, COMMITTEES:
ITEM #2: TABLED SEPTEMBER 2,1997: ORDINANCE NO. 761 — TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION:
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 2
Corrie: Council, hopefully we will be able to get those done by the next meeting October
7, we still have a few things to tweak. Are there any questions about that at this point. If
not I will entertain a motion for table.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table Ordinance No. 760 and 761 until our
October 7th meeting.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table item #1 and item
#2 until the October 7th meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
• • C� • 'dig �lL".1
Corrie: At this time I would like to have Shari give us, you gave us some information
and also the City Attorney to give us some information on this preliminary plat. This was
a public hearing and I think we got some more information and I guess the question was
raised Counselor whether that needs to be in a public hearing to present that
preliminary plat. Shari do you want to bring that to the Council's attention and see where
we are here and let them make that decision.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council there was some question about the ground water
problems out there. The applicant has submitted new information. I think what Bruce
Freckleton wanted to happen was that we hold another public hearing next month so
that this information is officially entered into that record. That was the advice of the City
Attorney that we would hold another public hearing on October 7 which would also be a
public hearing on the variance for the plat at that time.
Crookston: That is correct, the information I obtained from Bruce Freckleton was that
there were soils testing and water testing that basically indicated that what Mr. Shipley
was indicating to the City was in fact true and that the water levels were in fact higher.
Mr. Freckelton indicated to me that in some cases the water was higher than the ground
level was. We asked for the additional testing to be done and that is what came back
as doing. We thought it was correct to have those tests and proposals entered in written
record to have any comments made those parties interested that being the applicant or
Mr. Shipley or anybody else. After they had that information then they can submit
additional testimony to the City Council. If necessary that may require additions to
changes of the existing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow: I guess my question would be did we in fact close the public hearing or was it
continued?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 3
Corrie: Going back through the record Mr. Morrow we have closed the public hearing.
Morrow. I guess the point I want to make there in the future to keep these delays from
happening is that we darn well better be continuing the public hearing so that we are not
continually inconveniencing the folk coming to the meetings and the staff that are
preparing the private sector preparing the reports because basically if I am
understanding counselor right that this going to get tabled tonight with no input because
it is not a public hearing and not noticed as a public hearing. So I guess what I am
recommending is that if there is going to be delays in the future on any subject that we
continue the public hearing rather than close the public hearing and that way things
become part of the public record in a timely manner. So that we can clear these things
one way or another.
Corrie: Any further comments?
Rountree: I support that, we should be looking at that in terms of convenience and
believe we need to establish the public hearing for this again and make it (inaudible) for
the variance request.
Corrie: I agree, that is one of the reasons I hesitate to close the public hearings too
early because with comments because this very thing comes up. This is all the way
back to August 5th and information keeps coming in. So you are right we need to do a
public hearing on that. If there are no further comments I will entertain a motion to table
this until October 7th for a public hearing and at that point probably (inaudible).
Crookston: We need to have time to publish that notice and make sure that we have
time, we have to publish it 15 days prior to the time that we actually have the hearing.
Corrie: Becky, you want to say something, I will give you a chance here.
Bowcutt: We would just like to make a statement that we were heard on the 5th of
August, we were deferred because approval could not be made on the preliminary plat
until such time as the ordinance for the annexation was acted upon. While I happened
to be out of town some questions arose. We received a fax from the City stating we
have three questions could you please provide us with some additional reports, get us
some answers to these questions get it back before the City Council. We have diligently
been working with the City, I have been coordinating with Mr. Shipley over the phone.
He asked for the leiter from my client, I did go get the letter from my client. We have
done everything that has been asked of us and now the question arises we can't submit
the information that the City Council told us to go get two weeks ago or four weeks ago
because of this public hearing issue. I have been in many public hearings over the past
seven years. The County Commissioners, the Boise City Council they, it takes a
majority vote to open up the public hearing or to open up the public record to submit
information. I have seen them hold the public record open just for one particular item
such as a traffic study. It is not unusual. I went through the Idaho Code looking for
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 4
something that would say that you can't open the hearing. This was a deferred item, it
was deferred in the public. The parties that are interested are here, myself, my client,
Mr. Shipley. In the Idaho Code it says you shall conduct the governing board shall
conduct at least one public hearing using the same notice and hearing procedures as
the commission. 1 looked in your ordinance and it repeats the same verbiage. Then 1
turned to I think section 9-604E 6 it says the Council shall approve with conditions, deny
or table the preliminary plan, development plan. If the preliminary plan is tabled it may
be reconsidered by the Council within 45 days of the public hearing. Then the
administrator shall notify the applicant of the Council's action. Today is the 42nd day. So
if you can reconsider the action on an application but you can't make a vote to open the
hearing to submit three pieces of information that were requested. I guess I find that
unusual. I respect the Council's wishes, if they feel that this is inappropriate. I just feel
that this has gone on quite a long time. We have provided the City with two reports on
this ground water, one was submitted with the application. I am told by the City staff one
individual in particular that they cannot find it yet it was submitted because it was
required. We submitted that one again we submitted a second one by another
independent firm. I feel that we kind of have been run through the ringer. We have
jumped through a lot of hoops and we are trying to lay this out so we can show this is
viable. I would like that opportunity. Thank you
Corrie: Thank you Becky. Counselor, is it still your opinion on the public hearing?
Crookston: 1 believe that from what Bruce Freckleton indicated to me that the changes
in the soil testing and the water analysis are facts that were not presented at the
previous public hearing. The people need to have an opportunity to see those and hear
those and have any type of response that they desire to present as Mr. Morrow pointed
out we closed the public hearing and I think that is the big problem. I don't know how the
other cities or the counties do that. As Ms. Bowcutt indicated that they hold public
hearings open for one or two items if it is held open for that period and everything else
is closed then you can have those one or two items resubmitted because the public
hearing was not closed as to those two or three specific items. But I don't think it is
appropriate to allow additional testimony into the record that those parties in opposition
have not even had an opportunity to hear or see. So 1 think that it is appropriate to hold
another public hearing for submission of that evidence. And any testimony relating
thereto.
Corrie: The City Clerk has told me that we can get it in the paper tomorrow that the 7`h
of October can be a date. Council discussion?
Rountree: Could we not open the record tonight, take the testimony, leave the hearing
open, notice it, close the hearing at the end of next meeting, take action along with
opening and taking testimony on a variance and take action on that. At least what Ms.
Bowcutt is saying that by no action the information exchange is one of their willingness
to exchange it with Mr. Shipley as opposed to providing it with the rest of the public who
might be interested tonight. Making that information available through the fact that the
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 5
hearing has been reopened for the 15 or 20 days that it is noticed then the hearing
closes next week or in two weeks or three weeks.
Crookston: I think that is a possibility but I do not think that it is a good idea. Because
you are going to have that additional hearing let's say on October 7th anyway, I think
you are much better off because of the notice provisions that we have to meet I think we
are much better off to have all of the testimony submitted at that time. We don't know
who wants to testify about this. We believe that Mr. Shipley might testify. We probably
know that Ms. Bowcutt might testify but we don't know anybody else that might desire to
testify. We may not have any others testify. But there is the possibility that there are
other people that desire to testify.
Rountree: And they could at our next meeting. We could get their testimony this
evening at least on the record.
Crookston: I don't like that procedure because nobody has any ability other than these
two people that are here tonight and someone might want the ability and they are
allowed to testify later that is true. But even these people don't have I am not aware of
have the testimony or the evidence about the water and the soils testing.
Bentley: I appreciate Councilman Rountree and what he is trying to do and speeding
this up. But the one problem I see with it is maybe somebody comes in and testifies at
the next meeting and would like to make comment on what was said tonight. I think it
works better if we got it all done at the same time so that it could raise their questions
out of what Mr. Bowcutt or Mr. Shipley might have to say. I would like to see us catch up
the time we are losing but I don't know how we can do it.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess from my perspective the request here originally was for
technical data, it was back up it was support data. In the public hearing forum data was
asked for based on that testimony. It appears to me unless we have some mechanism
for bringing this to closure any time the Council or the staff asks anybody for back up
technical data that we are going to suffer through the current mess that we are currently
in. So it would appear to me that I am in agreement with both of my colleagues here.
Councilman Rountree's position with the fact of opening up the record and allowing the
data to be submitted. Mr. Bentley's position with respect to having it obviously heard on
the 7th for public hearing input needs to be done this time. I don't know that in the future
when we are asking as a City for technical data that it needs to be part of another public
hearing or a continued public hearing. If we are gong to adopt that methods then
obviously we are never going to bring anything to closure with respect to getting
something done. It seems to me that the essence of the public hearing process is to
determine whether the concept is general is acceptable or not to the public. And that
technical details that are required in terms of making something work are not in fact
criteria to decide whether it is acceptable or not acceptable. So I would favor at this
juncture allowing the submission of the information so that at least our staff during the
next two weeks or three weeks can be working on the data that has been submitted and
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 6
not yet delay this until the middle of October for the approval process because the staff
doesn't get to see the material until the morning of the 8th of October.
Corrie: Let me ask you a question if I might Becky, is the information tonight is it based
upon what we have here this afternoon or is there more? Just this or more?
Bowcutt: (Inaudible)
Corrie: Any further discussion? I will entertain a motion any way you want to go here
folks.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my motion would be to open up the hearing to allow testimony by
the developer, the developer's representative and Mr. Shipley.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to open at this time to
receive information by Briggs Engineering and anyone else that would like to discuss
this at this time with the understanding that we will have the public meeting on the 7th as
well. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
Becky Bowcutt, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowcutt: Thank you, as I was saying I appreciate the opportunity so in the event the
City Council has some questions then that provides us with some opportunity to have
additional answers on the 7th so we appreciate that. Three things were asked of us,
number 1 we did submit a report from Jason Kelly. He is a geotechnical expert it was
submitted in the original preliminary plat application. However a staff member of public
works department says he could not find it. This was done in November of 96, since
that time we have monitored those test holes. Mr. Kelly did it for a period an then
Kleinfelder who is another geotechnical hydrological company went through and
monitored those test holes. We had some unusual reads on some of the test holes.
There is a total of nine that are situated around the site. There is one right here
(inaudible) we had some unusual test results in the irrigation months of June and July
and some of the test holes that were out in this area. When I discussed this with Mr.
Bastian of Kleinfelder he said he believed that some of the correlation between these
was due to irrigation. We decided after getting feedback from City staff to go out and go
dig some more test holes. So we went out on last week and (inaudible) in place with the
monitoring (inaudible) this appears to be the problematic area according to Mr. Shipley
(inaudible) This particular test hole right here we went down ten feet no ground water
was encountered here. There were good sands, course gravel were encountered We
dug this one right here by the Nine Mile Drain to kind of gage what is the interference
we were having (inaudible). This particular test hole we encountered water about five
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 7
feet. It just comes out when you are down ten feet you can kind of see it seeping out
the edge. So what is happening according to Mr. Bastian is we are seeing some
migration here from that (Inaudible). This particular test hole here is Mr. Shipley's
property, it was pretty much consistent with this one. It was a little bit shallower where
we found some ground water, it started seeping out the side 4 feet and 6 inches. There
are ditches one is (Inaudible) there are two drainage ditches that run parallel on our
side. Those ditches are full of water, Mr. Bastian and I walked those ditches, looked at
them. I said what is your opinion here sir, and he said my opinion is the fact that the
water in these ditches isn't moving, it is just standing there. These ditches need
cleaned severely. Now if that ditch was say piped or done away with if that is possible
then would we have the same problem that we are encountering here down the road.
He said no I believe that interference what is causing it is it is running across a layer
and it only comes out about around that 50 to 100 foot mark and then it is gone. So we
are giving you a little bit of interference right through here. We dug this test hole here
which is probably 168 feet from Mr. Shipley's property no ground water. So and this one
here as I mentioned before was fine. So I think what we are encountering based on our
observations out there and Mr. Bastian's we're getting some leakage right here in this
area when it comes out of the box, those boxes they tend to leak it is a given fact. It
comes down here and then we are getting some interference right in this vicinity. If you
had a band right through here. My question to Mr. Bastian is this a severe problem. His
answer was no. I said now can things be done, what remedies would you recommend.
He said one you can pipe the ditches. Obviously the problem goes away. Or if you can
abandon the ditches if they are not necessary. Secondly he said you can go in and put
a cut off trench is what they call it when they put in some drain rock and some
(Inaudible) geotechnical fabric along there and that intercepts the ground water. That
ground water if it does comes this direction from these irrigation ditches then it can pick
it up, move it over right to the Eight Mile Drain put it at a gentle slope it would be
subsurface about 7 feet. Underground, low maintenance, very little maintenance if
designed appropriately, The other thing is we can put a perforated pipe to take that
water down go here or you can install drain rock around foundations. But we just
basically see a problematic area right here. The other issue that was listed in the
memo was concerning the sewer. The question I believe it was addressed on Mr.
Stoppello's easement. I have met with Mr. Stoppello again, this is about the 3rd time. We
are trying to hammer out some type of an easement agreement that he can be satisfied
with. He gave me a new list of things he wanted changed as far as the language was
concerned and how the City typically writes those agreements. The question was
asked by Mr. Morrow in the public hearing originally if you cannot get this easement
from Mr. Stoppello or it becomes impossible do you have an alternative or have you
looked at what that alternative is and is it viable? To answer Mr. Morrow's question we
did go out, we shot inverts, we shot topo and if the sewer was extended from Locust
Grove at East Time Zone which is Los Alamitos extended south down Locust Grove
through our project to Victory Road the depth of the sewer would be 15 feet at Victory
Road. If we go through Mr. Stoppello's the depth of the sewer is 12. So by going down
Locust Grove if that was the only alternative available because of lack of cooperation
from Mr. Stoppello the sewer would be 3 feet deeper. So, as far as would that hurt the
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 8
City's capacity as far as future service to the south. No, going down Locust Grove
according to our design it would enhance the sewer's capability to the south. We did
double check our figures, I had them do it twice to verify that no mistakes were made.
The third issue was the variance. The variance has been submitted as just to refresh
your memory we requested a variance for tiling of Ridenbaugh Canal, Eight Mile Lateral
and the Nine Mile Drain on the east side. We did have three blocks that exceeded the
maximum block length. Do you have any questions?
Corrie: Having realized this wasn't advertised as a public hearing, however is there is
anybody that would like to enter testimony at this time you certainly may. You also have
the opportunity on the 7th of October to do the same. Is there anyone at this time that
wants to issue any testimony?
John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shipley: First of all I want to state that swearing and affirming of the whole truth and
nothing but the truth is pretty good thing to do. But when Planning and Zoning accepted
this proposal that was told them that the water was 44 feet deep. I questioned that, I
said it is a lie and I got blew off by the people in Planning and Zoning. They just
absolutely didn't hear me. I have lived out there for 25 years. There is an old basement
in that house. October 15th the water comes in the canal and 8 to 9 days you can see
water in the basement and it reaches a depth by this time of the year up to my
shoulders. Every year I lived there for 25 years didn't make any difference when they
concreted the canal, it did it at exactly the same time. There isn't any of us that know
where water goes underground because we haven't got Superman's eyes. But water
does go underground, that is why we drill wells to get it. I have a picture it is not a very
good picture but it is the north pasture up by the house. When Mr. Babbitt here gates
his hayfield which is irrigated out of plastic pipe I get these puddles in my pasture where
my drain field, it has happened for 25 years. I know what goes on out there, I asked
Briggs Engineering and I also asked Greg Johnson the subdivider to give me a letter
that would give them responsibility for anything that would happen in a water situation
and leave me out of it because I don't want a bunch of people with new houses getting
water under their house and then coming back and telling me I can't irrigate anymore on
my property. I am only trying to protect myself 1 am not trying to be a horse's ass. All 1
am trying to do is protect myself because I know what happens. Mr. Babbitt is here
tonight he owned that property before I was there. At least 35 years ago it has been
doing this. About 8 or 9 or ten years ago they concreted that canal and it didn't make
any difference. All along the Eight Mile Lateral there is going to be a high water table if
they put them drain pipes next to the Eight Mile Lateral they will find that out. Because I
used to run water all the way down there down to the far corner and then all the way
down my far property line to the Nine Mile Drain. There is water standing out there that
ditch is on the Chandler and now the Schaffer property and now Greg Johnson has
bought it is a ditch that I maintain. I have maintained it ever since I have been there.
When Floyd Chandler I (inaudible) since then 1 have had to berm and shovel the gopher
holes out of it. I have trapped over 23 gophers in just that section back here in just this
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 9
year alone. There are a whole bunch of problems out there. The letter that I got from
Mr. Johnson said that he would expect maintenance on my half of the side. I have been
maintaining both sides. Because that ditch is the only protection I have for high water
getting out into the crops and it is coming from my property and it is perking under the
ground from all the other properties to the north. Just as sure as you could put some
radioactive pellets you could find it where it was coming from. I don't see why when
somebody gets up front of Planning and Zoning that they can tell something that is
actually in the record, I read it I have a copy of those records. And tell them that it is 44
feet and they don't hear me. Now we wouldn't be having all of these defugalities if
someone had just listened. I am not some dumb old sucker that comes up here raising
hell. I don't suspect that I have had anything by my intelligence questioned. When 1
asked Briggs Engineering for a letter I got some kind of mealy mouth letter. All it said
was that they knew that there was a problem. They didn't take responsibility for fixing it
and I have talked to Mr. Johnson in the irrigation district out there that he has a set of
laws that when he gets back from vacation I am going to go over and read them. But he
notified me that if there is a ditch there and it is serving a purpose for a drain ditch that
they will maintain that ditch or they will make the ditch work or do something but you
can't change the path of water. That is what the law says. That is picture and it is not a
very good picture but that is all the water in my north pasture that is coming up from
underground. I know what goes on there, there is a problem. I want to see if fixed so
there are a bunch of young people that buy those houses and they are my neighbors
and not my enemies. That is all I have to say.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Shipley, any questions? Anyone else that would like to issue
testimony at this time? With the vote of the Council we need to continue this public
hearing.
Tolsma: So moved
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded we continue this public hearing to October 7th, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED SEPTEMBER 2, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY RAMON AND MARILYN YORGASON:
Corrie: Is there a representative here tonight? Would you like to come forward and give
us a brief run down and then we will work on your final plat.
Kinkela: Chad Kinkela, Hubble Engineering, This is phase 6 of Crossroads Subdivision
which is south of Fairview and East of Eagle Road. It is 35 residential lots. It thus far
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 10
complies with the preliminary plat and as of now we don't see any comments that were
presented to us from the staff of the City of Meridian.
Corrie: Questions Council or Staff?
Morrow: I only have questions of Gary and Shari, their responses are appropriate to
questions you have asked?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, Council, I think everything is okay as far as the
answering our comments with the exception of one item and that has to do with
payment of assessment fees for the common area for the single point connection to
utilize City water before and after ditch water is available. I met with Mr. Yorgason and
Gene Smith of Hubble Engineering last week I think it was. We talked about the impact
of the single point connection on our water system and the assessment fees, the bases
for the assessment fees. I told Mr. Yorgason and Mr. Smith at that time I was doing
some more research on the fairness of the assessment for the common areas as
compared to his single family home water use for sprinkler irrigation. The billing
department is putting that information together for me right now. So as soon as I have
that information I told them that I would be back in touch with them and I am anticipating
we will make some adjustments on what we have been doing for assessments for
common area sprinkling.
Morrow. Follow up question Mr. Mayor, would that information then be impacted in our
approval of the final plat or would that be the appropriately placed in the CC&R's or
development agreement. Where is the proper place to address that in your opinion?
Smith: Well I think it is something we need to resolve before I sign the plat. I don't think
it would be any different than the bonding requirements that we place on the final plats
or fencing or landscaping or pressurized irrigation system and that sort of thing. I think it
should be prior to signature on the final plat.
Morrow: I have no further questions. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final
plat for Crossroads No. 6 by Ramon and Marilyn Yorgason.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the final plat for
Crossroads No. 6 by Ramon and Marilyn Yorgason, any further discussion? Hearing
none all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #773 — MICHENER REZONE:
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 11
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH
IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION NE Y4 NW % SECTION 7, T.3N, RAE, B.M., IDAHO;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that
would like to have Ordinance #773 read in its entirety. Hearing none, I will entertain a
motion for Ordinance #773.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt Ordinance #773 with the suspension of
rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we adopt Ordinance
#773 with suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE TO
THE 20 FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK BY ROGER MICHENER — 519 E. FAIRVIEW
AVENUE:
Corrie: Council, you have the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor if there is no discussion I would move that we adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions of law as written.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree —Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the decision.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it is hereby decided that the variance on the setback ordinances is
hereby granted. The applicant shall not be required to relocate the structures which are
going to be built on the property.
Bentley: Second
I
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 12
Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision as read, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #774 — CHERRY LANE BAPTIST CHURCH REZONE:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH
IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE SW % OF THE SE % OF SECTION 2, T.3N,
RAW OF B.M., IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there
anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance No. 774 read in its
entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #774.
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve Ordinance #774 with the suspension of rules.
Morrow: Second
Corrie :Motion made by Mr. Tolsma, second by Mr. Morrow to adopt Ordinance #774
with the suspension of rules. Roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley —Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: ORDINANCE #775 — VACATION OF GENTRY WAY?
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE EXISTING TEN FOOT WIDE PUBLIC
UTILITY DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT ADJACENT TO GENTRY WAY
IN LOT 12 AND LOT 13 AMENDED MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION A SUBDIVISION IN
MERIDIAN IDAHO AND RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, STATE
OF IDAHO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (End of Tape)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, does that indicate that the right of way is vacated?
Corrie: It is the public utility drainage and irrigation easement adjacent to Gentry Way, it
is a ten foot wide area. Counselor, you wrote the ordinance?
Crookston: 1 wrote it two or three different times and the final one eliminates the right of
way. I don't have a copy of what you are looking at right now.
Rountree: The issue was to leave the road right of way and to leave the irrigation
easement there as I recall.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 13
Crookston: This is not the final draft because this one also says that the property is in
the City of Meridian, it is not in the City of Meridian, it is in Ada County. So this is not my
final version of the ordinance.
Corrie: Pray tell whose is it?
Crookston: It is my version but it is not my final version.
Corrie: I think we are probably best to table this one.
Rountree: Mr. Me or I move that we table action on Ordinance #775 until our next
meeting October 7 ".
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to table ordinance #775 to
the October 7t" meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: ORDINANCE #776 — BUILDING & PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT:
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, in view of some editorial mistakes and that type of thing I would
move that we table this for action at our October 7t" meeting in conjunction with items
#1 and 2.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table to October 7t"
any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: RESOLUTION #166 —AMENDING APA ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT:
Corrie: Counselor, do we need to read this in its entirety as well?
Crookston: It is not required.
Corrie: For the general public what this does is that if the APA is dissolved that it all
goes back proportionately to the cities that were part of the APA Association. Is there
anyone from the audience that would like to have Resolution #166 read in its entirety? I
read this one it is right. I will entertain a motion for Resolution #166 to be adopted.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 14
Bentley: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma to adopt Resolution #166
roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow—Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY LIFE CENTER BY CHERRY LANE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH:
Corrie: Council, any discussion on the findings of fact before you? I will entertain a
motion for the findings of fact and conclusions.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council adopt and approve the findings of fact
and conclusions.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree —Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council hereby decides that the conditional
use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application is
approved with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
That the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and
life safety code, uniform fire code, parking, paving and landscape requirement and all
ordinances of the City of Meridian. Conditional use should be subject to annual review
or more often if the conditions warrant upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision, any
further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 15
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: FINAL PLAT FOR DEVLIN PLACE SUBDIVISION, 43 LOTS BY D.W. INC.:
Corrie: Is there a representative from D.W. Inc. here this evening? Council discussion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, Gary and Shari D.W. Inc, is Dan Woods is it not? I guess
consistent with our policy I would like to hear him make a presentation.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council
(Inaudible)
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this item until our December 2nd
meeting.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to table the final plat for
Devlin Place Subdivision to December 2"d, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE
REQUIREMENT TO TILE THE SAFFORD LATERAL BY GOLFVIEW ASSOCIATES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing, however, Shari I understand you have a
(inaudible) to table this one as well.
Stiles: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council they requested that the public hearing be continued
to the 7th as their representative was unable to be here tonight. And because of the
issues with regard to the ordinance.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we continue the public hearing for Golfview
Association Limited Partnership to October 7m
Corrie: Before I get a second on that is there anyone here from the public that wants to
testify at this time on this particular item? I will take the second now.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to continue the public
hearing to October 7th, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 16
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE FROM JERRY COBLER TO MUHAMMAD SABIHA
ALI — 1155 E. CHATEAU:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing at this time and invite the applicant to come
forward.
Muhammad Ali, 3437 S. White Post Way, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Ali: We would like to request the Council and City to approve our transfer of conditional
use permit for the day care. We will continue to meet the City's requirements as they
are and provide quality child care. We have existing facility in Boise right now, we run
that day care which is a much larger facility. We will transfer that technology and know
how to this day care and enhance the quality of day in this vicinity which this
neighborhood needs one.
Corrie: Questions from Council for Mr. Ali?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, my only question is that you are familiar with all the original
conditions of approval for this day care and you are in agreement with the original
conditions of approval?
Ali: Yes sir
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time?
Thank you Mr. Ali, Council discussion?
Morrow: I have no discussion if Gary and Shari don't have any.
Corrie: Gary and Shari any comments? I will close the public hearing.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Would you come up here so we can get it on the record and get it correct
Ali: I think, my name is Muhammad and my wife is Sabiha so I think it should read
Muhammad and Sabiha Ali.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Any problem Counselor with the permit?
Crookston: Walt asked me if we needed to have new findings of fact and conclusions of
law for the transfer and I don't believe that we do.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 17
Rountree: So we just approve the transfer?
Crookston: That is correct.
Corrie: I will close the public hearing and Council, your pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the transfer of the Conditional Use
Permit for day care center, 1155 E. Chateau from Jerry Cobler to Muhammad and
Sabiha Ali.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the transfer of
conditional use permit, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VANGUARD
MILITARY ACADEMY BY VANGUARD MILITARY ACADEMY:
Corrie: Is a representative from the Academy here this evening? Shari any comments
for Council?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council after the initial public hearing the applicant did not return
any phone calls or requests for additional information. For that reason the Planning and
Zoning Commission went ahead and prepared the findings which were to deny the
request.
Rountree: So this is just a clean up item?
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, Shari is that to say that we have had and Will we have had no
correspondence at all from this applicant? So basically we are going to treat it as though
it were an abandoned project?
Stiles: Yes
Corrie: 1 will entertain a motion for the findings of fact and conclusions of law then.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law
as prepared by Planning and Zoning.
Morrow: Second
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 18
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley —Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the decision and recommendation.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the City Council deny the conditional use permit
requested by the applicant.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision, any further discussion? All those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COVERED,
DRIVE -UP ATM AT MERIDIAN FIRST SECURITY BANK BY FIRST SECURITY
SERVE CO. — BRYCE REYNOLDS:
Corrie: Is there a representative from First Security?
Toolsen: Greg Toolsen, JGT Architecture, 1212 12th Avenue South, Nampa. Mayor and
Council we are asking for a conditional use to have a covered, drive through ATM
machine at the First Security Bank in Meridian here. The conditions that are
recommended by Planning we don't have any problem with. I would like to make one
clarification. One condition that mentions that there are 2 handicapped parking spaces
and one is across, one is not adjacent to the building as originally indicated on our plan
was misrepresented. There are two handicapped spaces an they are presently adjacent
to the building. Outside of that we accept all the other conditions. So I guess we are
asking for your approval.
Corrie: Thank you, any further discussion Council?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for us by Planning and Zoning.
Rountree: Second
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 19
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve of the findings
of fact and conclusions of law as adopted by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote.
Discussion?
Rountree: Do we want to clear up the point that the applicant made in the findings about
restriping the handicapped parking?
Morrow. We could amend the findings to indicate that is (inaudible)
Rountree: Well it indicates in here that is to be done and he is indicating he has
complied with the handicapped parking.
Morrow: I guess the point Mr. Rountree in my mind would be that it is indicating here it
is to be done, it has already been done so it is qualified.
Rountree: Good point
Corrie: Any further discussion? Roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the decision.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional use
permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and similar conditions
as found justified and appropriate by the City Council. That the property be required to
meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code,
parking requirements. Specifically including the restriping of the parking area which has
been testified tonight that it has been completed. The location of the handicapped
parking and spaces next to the existing bank building. That the paving and landscaping
requirements and all the ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should
be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City of Meridian.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the decision as read, any further
discussion? Hearing none all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #417: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USED CAR AND
TRUCK SALES BY CENTENNIAL MOTORS — 225 W. FRANKLIN ROAD:
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 20
Corrie: A representative is here I know so would you like to step forward and give us
some background on your conditional use permit request.
Fishel: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Council, I am here to request the conditional use permit to
continue my used car lot truck and sales at 225 W. Franklin Road. Also, work with the
city and the county and of course the state on developing the property as a nice facility
down there. That is why I am here. What I would like to do is to get a conditional use
permit to operate legally complying with the City until such time we get Franklin road
down there and put the sidewalk, curb and gutter (Inaudible) and the driveways and all
the other types of things. I have been meeting with Ada County, on three different
occasions. We have been planning but wish for you to understand that everything is
subject to change in the development process. It was brought to my attention as you
can read in the conclusions of law that we have expanded I have expanded the
business and of course I understand It was brought to my attention that we need
another conditional use permit for that development. So that is what I am here for. I beg
of you to grant me a conditional use permit so I can continue and to develop the
property as of course we see fit.
Corrie: Any questions Council of the applicant? Thank you very much. Staff,
comments? Questions or discussion of the Council? I will entertain a motion on the
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for us by the P & Z.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission, roll
call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow —Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree —Yea, Tolsma —Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie I will entertain a motion on the decision.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, The City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional
use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar
conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council. That the property be
required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes, uniform
fire code, parking, paving, landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 21
Meridian. The conditional use shall be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by
the City.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and
recommendation as read, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 119,395
SQUARE FOOT MINI -STORAGE UNIT COMPLEX (PHASES 2 — 4 OF THE EXISTING
STORAGE FACILITY) BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — LOT 9, BLOCK 1 AVEST
PLAZA SUBDIVISION:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Avest here this evening?
Weber: Scott Weber, 1 represent Avest Limited Partnership. I am here tonight to
request the conditional use permit to construct 119,000 square feet of mini -storage at
phases 2 through 4. We went through Planning and Zoning last Tuesday night. There
was one concern I would like to address tonight about an exit road leading out onto
Avest's loop road. I have made some changes I have submitted some to Shari for her
records. The concern was the emergency exit road was too close to Locust Grove so
we moved that back roughly 175 feet back to the east. But it is still strictly an emergency
exit gate. So that is about the only concern that P & Z was concerned with that. So I
would entertain any questions you may have on this project. It is indicated there by No.
1 that is originally where it was when we submitted it. We moved it back to number 2.
Corrie: Council, any questions? Thank you, Council any questions of staff? Comments
from staff?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if there is no discussion on the part of the Council I would move that
we accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for us by Planning
and Zoning with the additional finding that the emergency access road has been moved
from site one to site two approximately 175 feet east of the original location.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made to approve the preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law
by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the addition to the testimony of moving
the emergency exit to the east. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow —Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma —Yea
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 22
Corrie: The decision and recommendation motion.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional use
permit requested by the applicant as amended for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or
similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and the property
be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes,
the uniform fire code. Parking, paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances
of the City of Meridian. The Conditional use shall be subject to review upon notice to the
applicant by the City unless the City Council that the conditional use is not subject to
review.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision as read, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION ADVISORY REPORT:
Corrie: At this time I will invite Keith Bird.
Bird: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. As you can see I gave you the minutes of
our last Mayors Advisory Committee meeting. Also the minutes of the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting on August 18th. The part that pertained to this deal As
you can see by the minutes of our meeting we made a motion to come before the City
Council through the Parks and Recreation Commission to have a feasibility study done
on the community recreation center with some stipulations that we have some questions
which are attached to the minutes there. We took it to the Parks and Recreation and
they basically if you read through their minutes told us to come directly to you. So that is
What I am doing coming direct representing Mayor's Advisory Committee to ask you
guys to have a feasibility study on the community rec. center or whatever you call it and
see if the public wants it, if they want to finance it, how we do it, what we need in it and
that kind of stuff. The committee has worked for about 15 months and I think they are
basically at their end. That is what they were asked to serve on the committee for, was
to look into the feasibility of a community recreation center.
Corrie: Thank you Keith, questions or comments?
Morrow: This proposed questionnaire or feasibility study that is in our packet
Bird: Walt, that is what the Advisory Committee came up with. It has some questions
that we would like to see within the feasibility. We realize that is not a complete
feasibility study.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 23
Morrow. I guess my question to you and your committee is if it's not a real feasibility
study whey would we (inaudible)
Bird: It is a feasibility study with those questions as part of the stipulation of the
feasibility study. But there are some other, that probably would answer the whole
feasibility as far as I am concerned but I am not a professional survey person.
Morrow: So this study was devised or scripted through the Committee.
Bird: Those questions came up from some previous surveys that we had gotten from
within the committee members from what they had picked up and around and stuff and
we put them together. We had originally taken it to the Parks and Recreation
Commission they looked at it and told us to go back and redefine some things. Because
they were pretty one sided so we did and that is what they came up with.
Corrie: I think if I understand it correctly if they do a feasibility study and approve that,
that would these are some of the questions that they would want the architectural firm to
be sure and address in that feasibility study.
Rountree: I guess you clarified it but the point that I understand is that these are
questions that would go in a feasibility study. These questions are not the feasibility
study. They are recommending the feasibility study be pursued by the City that would
encompass this and whatever else the City might feel we need to explore for park
facilities. That sort of thing.
Bird: What you want to add into it is something, we were as a Committee to look into a
community recreation center. We weren't charged to do anything else.
Rountree: I have the question that I continue to ask. What is the fate or
recommendation on the fate of the committee?
Bird: I think that right now I think it should be a sub -committee made off the Parks and
Recreation Commission. That is my personal, people have worked hard for 15 and 16
months. Until something has gone we are at a dead end to be truthful. If it doesn't go it
gets turned down that is it. I personally want to see it get before the public (inaudible)
that is it, if they are not then we are gone.
Rountree: Not to hold you accountable but just a ball park range of potential cost of the
feasibility study?
Bird: We had two come to us, one is pretty well out in the open one is about $14,000.
Boise State said $9,000 to $10,000. 1 think a lot of it is what you are going to include in
the Study and what kind of survey you are going to have. Now you know we had two
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 24
gentlemen come in and give two very good presentations and I would say $10,000 to
$14,000 Charlie. That would be my rough guess.
Corrie: If I am not mistaken I think one of the architectural firms in the northern part of
the state gave us a preliminary what they could do on a feasibility study for somewhere
in the $9,000 to $10,000.
Bird: It was $9500
Corrie: What that is, is a complete study done with the public and everything up to the
bonds or whatever the case may be that the Council decides to do. That includes public
hearings and staff reports and stuff that they have.
Bird: I think if you would probably would go out and have some competitive bids and
stuff like that from architecture engineering firms whatever you are going to do survey
people it is going to get competitive and it could be lower than that I don't know Charlie.
do know that the schools paid $25,000 to $30,000 for some of their bond (inaudible).
Corrie: That would probably have to be on a bid system anyway.
Rountree: Another area that the Committee was charged to explore was the possibility
or the avenues to finance this through private funds. Have you gotten any success?
Bird: We have not, Charlie it is pretty hard to do, I will speak for myself, when you don't
have any idea of what you are going to get. How can you go out and say can you
donate this or can you donate that because we don't know what we are going to have
what we get. It has not been, I think you can probably get some funding, but let's face
the fact (inaudible). I don't see it being probably of getting it here. I think you (inaudible)
but how much I don't know. We never did pursue that to be truthful we just pursued
getting a survey out and getting something for the public to say yea or nay.
Corrie: I think a lot of that is done with the feasibility study itself because when they start
out with the public hearings they try to find out what the people want. They come up
with the conclusion that they don't want it then there is no sense in going any further
with that. The public hearings will tell us pretty much what the people decide they want
to do. They look into the feasibility of bonds or what have you. What they showed us if
they bring it up to that conclusion to the starting point and then it is up to the Council to
make that decision after that point. Any other questions? Thank you Keith, thank you
to the advisory committee. You have done a lot of hard work, I will get a letter to each of
you thanking you for the work you have done on this. Council can take this under
advisement if they so desire. Or they can do it however they want if they want to take it
under advisement or if they want to make a decision tonight. It is entirely up to you.
Rountree: I just throw this out to Council that we are in the initial stages of building a
recreation department. I see this feasibility study as something that possibly the new
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 25
director will want to pursue and also incorporate some other information gathering
aspects related to the entire use of the public space and public space as it relates to
recreation of the City of Meridian. So I would take this recommendation of the Advisory
Committee under advisement and work with the new Parks and Recreation Director that
we then pursue the feasibility study that would incorporate these questions in addition to
whatever avenues of planning that individual would want to pursue with the approval of
the Council.
Morrow: I concur with Charlie, I think that from my stand point Mr. Mayor, what I would
like to see is that since we are close to becoming a stand alone Parks and Recreation
Department that we need to give that department a chance to draw a blue print of where
it is they are today and where it is they need to go. I think that at that point in time if
there is to be a feasibility study then it is to be incorporated in the overall picture a blue
print of where it is we are going. I think also with respect to a feasibility study it needs to
be put together through the competitive bid process but as with any valid polling it
needs to be done under a scientific control in terms of how the study is put together. So
I would be supportive of delaying the decision on this until we saw a presentation by the
Parks and Recreation Department of what direction they will be going. Are you, the
Parks and Recreation Department are you, you mean the department and the
Commission or both?
Morrow: Well in my perception it would be both because we are about to hire a Parks
and Recreation Director. Certainly his charge from the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Council is going to be and here are all the things we have been
working with, here are all the things we have been looking at. Make some sense of all
of this and bring us back a package of where it is you think we need to go and how we
bring all of these items together and have a plan. Then the parks and recreation
Commission gets a shot at that proposal and obviously once they are done the Council
gets a shot at it and that department head would be like the rest of our department
heads in terms of putting their department together and putting it out there for public to
take a look at and to comment on and press forward. So that is how I see it.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bentley: 1 would just like to get a time line on how long we are going to sit on this. It has
been worked on for 15 to 16 months and I would like to get some ideas on where we
are going to move on this.
Corrie: Charlie, any suggestions or ideas?
Rountree: Like Glenn said it has been poked at for 15 or 16 months. I don't know that
because it has taken that long now that the City Council has it that there is a great
amount of urgency. 1 would hope that it would be a priority of the Parks and Recreation
Commission and a priority with the new director to get this kind of survey underway so
we can chart a course and modify the comp plan as it relates to this issue and establish
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 26
a parks and recreation plan for the community. That is certainly something that I will be
interested in pursuing with the parks and recreation commission. I am not going to
promise you next month we have too many of those going right now.
Bentley: I don't want to see it die.
Rountree: I don't think we are going to be looking at another 15 to 16 months I would
say something less than 6 and maybe 3 or 4.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, with that said I would like to make a motion that Mayor's Advisory
Committee on the Recreation Center would be disband since their work is done and
with our thanks.
Morrow. Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley and second by Mr. Morrow that we disband the
Mayors Advisory Committee since the charter that they were asked to do has been
done. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
Corrie: Thank you committee members that are here I appreciate the work that you
have done and I will get a personal letter out to each one of you and thanking your for
all the work you have done. It has been a long procedure and I think we will see the
fruits (inaudible).
ITEM #20: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
PARKING LOT PLAN:
Corrie: Is there a member of the Treasure Valley Baptist Church here this evening?
Aldredge: Bob Aldredge, Treasure Valley Baptist Church. What we are proposing is laid
out on the plan here. I thought that would be easier than trying to look at your packets.
There are some unique factors to this property that I would like to point out that I
dictated how this all laid out that it did cause us to get a little creative on a few things.
This is the freeway out here and the freeway is raised considerably compared to the
ground level right here. If I understand it this area the pre -level is at or above my head
level and it crowns out from there. Because of this (inaudible) if they are in the far lane
over here they can't see anything from about here on out it is totally invisible to them. In
the near lanes (inaudible) but not much closer. In addition to that we have a sewer
easement that comes here comes around (inaudible) that was needed for some
development on down the road so we granted an easement to that. There is also a
ditch that comes (inaudible) larger Nine Mile Drain that comes along this side of the
property. All of those have various requirements or setbacks. This sewer easement for
example has a 20 foot easement area, 10 foot each side. Nine Mile has a 30 foot, 15
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 27
foot each side of centerline. The Nine Mile Drain is totally on the adjoining property
none of it is on our property, right up to the edge of our property. What we have
therefore proposed in order to get the most visual impact for one (inaudible)
warehouses and this is the modular homes (Inaudible) is to create a visual area in here.
So rather than having trees put along this side they would be right up against the
freeway well below ground level. We pull these back, they cannot be within ten feet of
this or 15 feet of this (inaudible). So we are unable to do anything, so we created larger
areas here these are entirely grassed in and then trees on the 30 foot center to center
basis on each of these along these two areas and then green along here (End of Tape)
there is a holding pond over here in Mr. Brown's territory that soaks most of that up.
actually myself have never seen water in it but (inaudible) goes through. We would add
all of the trees that are shown by this purple of these areas plus some fill ins around
through here to bring us up to a total of 73 trees on the property. We would have added
grass here and here plus retaining all the grass through these areas and actually new
grass here because that would not be tiled in. Right now it is just a ditch area that
comes through. All of these are allowable in terms of the easement areas and so forth,
we would then be extending the parking up on this, in essence we are flopping this so
that the trees come into the center and the parking goes out to the edge. Because of
that we do need to have some variance in this because more normal you have your
trees at the edge and parking towards the center. We will have the same amount of
trees and so forth but we need to reverse those because we can't have the trees out
that close to any of these areas. There are also some unusual angles here as you will
see which makes it hard to deal with and we try to work with. This adds approximately
65 new parking spots. To do that we went to some angled parking up here (inaudible)
and that allowed us to get all of those in still retaining the green areas and keeping the
right amount of total area. Approximately 34,000 square feet of additional space there
that would come in. I think that this will meet all the needs that the City has. It adds a
bunch of new trees, it keeps some good landscaping and creates a very good visual
impact from the freeway while at the same allowing us to have more on site parking
which we need. We are fortunately running good Sunday attendance and so forth. We
don't want to start spilling up roads and so forth. Our adjoining neighbor has been very
good about letting us park in parking lots and so forth. But we can't count on the number
one and number 2 (inaudible). So we are requesting that this site plan be approved, we
be allowed to use this variant method of having the parking go to the edge with the trees
back somewhat to the middle. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Corrie: Thank you very much, staff comments?
Stiles: You are probably wondering why you are even looking at this. When the
Treasure Valley Baptist Church was annexed part of their requirement was that any
development would undergo site plan review. When they initially approached me with
some additional parking there the first plan was to just pave everything with no
additional landscaping. Because they had the existing setbacks when they were
annexed no mention was made of the 35 foot landscaped setback that we have been
requesting along the freeway. That was another reason that I wanted this to go before
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 28
Council is what they will be left with is the 12 feet which it is a nice green area now but
there is not allowed any trees in that area because of the sewer. I think this is a good
compromise that they have come up with. As long as the 3 inch caliper trees can be
accommodated in those five foot strips and that their drainage plan is approved by our
public works department. They have gone to great length to try to get some additional
property next to them so that they could put some parking there and have not been
successful. They have been parking up and down Tier. So I just wanted the Council's
blessing on approving something less than the 35 foot landscape setback for this
particular project.
Corrie: Would this require a variance?
Stiles: No
Corrie: So you are asking for the Council to review this and give you some input on
whether we think that is a good idea, is that what you are saying?
Stiles: Yes
Rountree: I think it is a good compromise, it looks like they have more than adequate
trees per square footage. The only comment I would make is you might want to get a
hold of our tree folks and get a recommendation on tree species. Have you talked to
them about that Shari?
Stiles: No,
Rountree: You might talk to Shari and get that individual's name. Do we need a
motion?
Corrie: I think it would probably help if you had a motion to help her with that decision, I
don't think it is required, if you so desire that would make it a little stronger.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City of Meridian accept the site plan as
offered by Treasure Valley Baptist church for their parking lot re -do.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the City of Meridian approve the
site plan review that was set forth by Treasure Valley Baptist Church, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 29
Corrie: Mr. Smith? While we are waiting for the City Engineer, do you have anything
Chief?
Gordon: Nothing your honor
Corrie: Shari, any comments or questions?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I thought that Doug Campbell would be here tonight.
Gary and 1 met with Doug and his father in their required design review meeting on the
Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7. They have made some slight modifications to the plat
going from 33 foot lots to 35 foot lots to accommodate these plans that they are
presenting here tonight. The floor, all of the floor plans they presented exceed what
they agreed to do when they were annexed. We let them know that we like some of
these plans better than others but I think that they have gone to a lot of trouble and
hopefully I think Charlie was one of the main people on the Council that wanted to see
some variation. I think they were looking a little bit like row houses before with all the
same design. We just wanted to know if you had any comments that you wanted us to
take back to them or suggestions.
Morrow: I guess my comment would be is I think my description before is they reminded
me of army barracks. This is markedly better. The original proposal at the point of
annexation was for them all to be the same and I think each of the four councilmen
expressed a real dislike for that. The variety here that you are showing us is good
ultimately it is for the market place to decide which is successful and which isn't by
virtue of sales. So these are acceptable to me.
Rountree: I think they have done what I asked them to do. It has some texture to it now
as opposed to just being ticky tacky.
Stiles: And they will be off setting them a little bit.
Rountree: Staggering the fronts.
Stiles: The only thing they have remaining is to come up with some elevations on their
common area. They still seem to be having some problems with that.
Rountree: It is still full of water.
Morrow. Those were our two outstanding issues with respect to this, were the elevation
of the units and the common area.
Stiles: Yes, so they will be submitting their final plat on that directly. Thank you
Corrie: Mr. Smith?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 30
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council, I have some bid results on the Tully Park
project. I will hand those out to you. Turn to the page 3 of the bid abstract is probably
the place I think we will start. We had five bidders. Boise Paving was the apparent low
bidder at $605,138.75. The second low was Newby Wiggins Construction at
$625,645.78. Our engineer's estimate was $606,285.74. A problem developed after
reading of the bids that one of the bidders Newby Wiggins representative wanted to see
what the subcontractor was listed as for the mechanical work by Boise Paving and he
suggested to us that this subcontractor was not licensed to do plumbing work, he was
licensed to do mechanical HVAC work only. So we took that under advisement and
subsequently Brad Watson my assistant checked public works records and found that
Boise Paving's mechanical subcontractor as listed I think his name is NU -Mechanical is
not licensed as a plumbing contractor. He is licensed as a HVAC contractor only. The
bid documents stated that and I will read a paragraph. Bidders must comply with all
state bidding laws as required by Idaho Code 67-2310. Each bidder must designate the
mechanical, plumbing and or air conditioning and electrical subcontractors and their
addresses he intends to use. Failure to do so will result in the bid being determined no
responsive and will be rejected. We, brad and I sent this dilemma onto our legal
counsel Wayne Crookston for his interpretation. I guess at this point I will turn the
microphone over to Wayne for comments.
Crookston: Thank you Gary, I did a lot of research on this and what comes out of it is if
we were dealing with Federal Funds and I thought there were some federal funds
involved in this because the pathway goes through Tully Park. My discussion with Gary
he said that is not true that this contract does not involve any federal funds. If there
were federal funds the bidder it is held that the bidder in this case Boise Paving and
Newby Wiggins do not have to have to have the license that is required at the time of
submission of bid but they have to have that license when the contract is executed. But
even in the opinion that I read which came from Bill Gigray who was the City Attorney
for Wilder he even questioned whether or not because the statute isn't specific as to
whether or not they still have to meet that requirement even though when you are
dealing with Federal Funds there is some indication that they do not have to be licensed
at the time of submission of the bid. In my discussion with Gary we are not dealing with
Federal Funds so that doesn't come into play at all. So the only thing we are dealing
with is the State statutes that deal with contracts that have no Federal Funds in them at
all. So then we are back to 67-2310 and using that language we have to deal wit the
bids that were presented and Boise Paving's mechanical contractor does not have the
license for plumbing. So their bid I believe did not comply with the law. It could be
deemed void. So then we are dealing with the entity that was the second low bidder.
Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, at some point before this evening it was discussed that
Boise Paving had a valid plumbing licensed, is that true?
Smith: Boise Paving is licensed as a building contractor and as such they are licensed
to do plumbing work. However for their to be responsive they would had to have listed
themselves as self in the mechanical subcontract under the plumbing under the
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 31
mechanical all they would have to say is self and it would have been their bid. That is
they could have shared it with NU -Mechanical, NU -Mechanical could have done the
HVAC, Boise Paving could have done the plumbing licensed as a general contractor. By
the way we did receive a letter of protest from the second low bidder too. We have run
into this before, this isn't the first time we have had subcontractors listed incorrectly, not
listed at all. The same thing happened on another project where the general bidding the
job could have done the subcontract work had they listed themselves and they did not.
We had to disqualify that bid. So technically if they had put their own name on there
they would be fine. But since they didn't they didn't follow the letter of our
recommendation or letter of transmittal so they didn't do it.
Smith: They didn't follow the bid law and they didn't follow the specifically follow the
requirements of our information for bidders.
Morrow: So we have two choices here we can either reject the bids and have it bid over
or we can award the bid and spend $20,000 more to number 2.
Smith: Yes, that is my understanding in talking to Wayne.
Crookston: I had a draft of a letter to you Mayor and Council if you would like me to read
it I can. But my analysis ends up just exactly what Mr. Morrow said that we either
declare the bid of Boise Asphalt unresponsive and void or we reject all bids pursuant to
50-341 J and re -advertise the project.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, In reviewing these figures just looking at the first item, the baseball
back stop, dug outs and fields Boise Paving has some in, that is where the $20,000 is.
They are only coming in at $25,000 where everybody else is running low to mid
$40,000. 1 kind of question how one out of the can estimate $20,000 low and all the
others are pardon the expression the ballpark figures of each other. I don't see where it
would do any good as far as throwing out all of the bids and starting over. Besides the
time delay we are looking at. This project has been on hold for three years or better
that I know of and I think it is time we get it going.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess Glenn I have a (Inaudible) coming with the rationale there.
Because the architect's estimate is more closely mirrored by the Boise Paving bid as
you look across the bids. Boise Paving may have been low on that item in a break down
but obviously has it compensated for someplace else by virtue of their capability of
doing earth work and so on and so forth. There is $20,000 spread essentially between
each bidder until you get to number four which there is a $30,000 spread and then
again there is almost another $30,000 spread between number 4 and number 5. So it
seems to me that I want to know in terms of a re -bid how long does that process take?
Smith: We have to have two advertisements in our local newspaper one week apart and
one week from the date of the last advertisement until the opening of the bid. So if we
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 32
were to advertise it Friday this Friday two weeks until we could open the bids again
assuming we could get people to bid it.
Berg: When would be the soonest that they start the project, that time frame?
Smith: It depends on the length of time it takes the contractor to get his bonds from his
bonding company. I would say at the very minimum two weeks probably more like three
weeks before they get everything back. After they receive the award I guess 2 to 3
weeks. Two weeks at the very minimum it just kind of depends on what kind of
relationship they have with the bonding company and how fast they respond.
Corrie: With your experience do you think that all of these people would re -bid again
and do anything differently? Other than I am sure Boise Paving is going to do
something differently (inaudible) how about the bottom line?
Smith: I think historically on re -bids you get a higher price but I couldn't say that for
certain if you get everybody to bid it again.
Corrie: So if everything stayed the same it would be a five week delay probably no
matter what if everything stayed the same and Boise Paving changed their verbiage but
that is possibly not going to happen,
Morrow: Well in rebids Mr. Mayor it can work both ways. Very candidly I have been
involved in those things where you now know what number one bid is and so everybody
scrambles to hit number one. So you get a much more aggressive bidding system
because the cards now are all on the table. So it can go both ways. I think in my case it
has been equal.
Corrie: I wouldn't know (inaudible)
Rountree: We would sure like to have a park but $20,000 is a fair amount of money. I
think industry standard is pretty much if there is a deviation 10% of the engineering
estimate and so forth you need some kind of special justification anyway. Which this is
more than that by a good sum. What was the work day schedule on this, number of
days?
Smith: I don't recall, I have a bid document in there I can grab it.
Crookston: Councilman Morrow asked me to read a portion of Mr. Gigray's opinion for
the City of Wilder. He states that towards the end the City has the authority to determine
who the lowest bidder is and that it may exercise that discretion so long as it does not
exercise that discretion arbitrarily and without reason. In addition I submit that the Idaho
Code 50-341 provides discretion to reject any and all bids which is a power entrusted to
the City Council and which it can freely exercise as long as it does not exceed or it is
not exercised arbitrarily and without reason. Which is what you said Charlie.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 33
Morrow. In that case law (inaudible)
Crookston: In this case the City of Wilder did rebid it, it is my understanding in my
discussion with Bill Gigray this afternoon he said that excuse me this morning and then
he sent this to me and I didn't get it read because I was down here until 3:00 this
afternoon. They did re -bid it because they thought that it was best to do that and it
ultimately worked out to where they got better bids. But as you said you have to have, it
can't be arbitrarily done and without reason. I think that is very correct.
Rountree: As much as I hate to see delay on this and this has been very close to me for
the past few months to try to get this thing going. $20,000 is pretty near and dear to the
city of Meridian. I guess I would have to opt to the taxpayer on this even though my
personal ego says let's go for it. But I would suggest that we look at rebidding it and
getting it as quick as we can and if we have to have a special session at the opening of
the bids to award the bids we do that. Anything to accelerate this thing.
Morrow: I don't have a problem with that, I think from my perspective that we need to do
the rebid. I think that it needs to be done as quickly as possible making the publishing
dates that we are after. That $20,000 is too much of spread of the taxpayer dollar at this
point in my mind to try to go a second place. If the spread were closer it wouldn't even
be a debate because we have been struggling long and hard to get this project. We
desperately need it and want to press forward. But we also have an obligation to the
general tax payer to make sure that we spend their money wisely. Probably our main
obligation to those folk. So I am in favor of the rebid.
Corrie: That would certainly take care of the Newby Wiggins possibility of contesting it.
Rountree: Well if they contest then we are tied up even longer.
Crookston: It can be contested by either party.
Corrie: Any further discussion? I think e have all pretty well agreed to that Mr. Tolsma,
Mr. Bentley. I guess I would entertain a motion.
Bentley: I just have one more comment and I understand what they are saying and I
agree with the $20,000 it is a lot of bucks. But you know how far do we go with giving
these people second and third chances that can't follow instructions. I have seen other
bids go before this Council that the guy has been disqualified because he can't follow
instructions. I have to agree thinking again the $20,000 is a lot of bucks we are going to
have to rebid it. But you know this really gets old.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we reject the bids for Tully Park and instruct City
staff to immediately institute a rebid process.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 34
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to reject all bids and do
a rebid process, any further discussion? I think I have to agree with Mr. Bentley I think
we need to be consistent as much as we can and I understand the points there too. All
those in favor? Opposed?
Smith: There are a couple other items on that memo that Brad sent to me that you need
to be aware. Item number 2 concerning ACHD that they are requesting a deosit of
$74,250 from the City of Meridian which is half the cost of a bridge extending 11` Street
on the east end of Tully Park. Depositing that money into the road trust fund. The
second item, item 3 has to do with power poles along Linder Road that are presently 3
to 4 feet from the back of curb as designed as would be constructed under this contract
and Idaho Power is saying and ACHD has said that the City would have to move those
power poles into the property. Idaho Power company has estimated $2500 to $3000 per
pole to move them.
Rountree: That is assuming the County is in a position to advance the roadway work.
Smith: Well we are going to do the roadway work as part of this project.
Rountree: They are going to be paying us for the right of way.
Smith: They are buying the right of way from us and I don't know any of the details from
that.
Rountree: It must be about $74,000 worth.
Smith: Should be pretty close to that.
Tolsma: Gary was that bridge on our property (inaudible)
Smith: Well there is no bridge right now
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Smith: When we accepted the ditch from Mr. Simunich then it put us up to the edge of
111h Street extended.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Smith: Yes sir, seeing as how that was waste land anyway.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 35
Corrie: (Inaudible)
Smith: That was a thought that we had if the City could just right a letter to ACRD and
say here put this in your road trust fund instead of a check we here promise to pay half
the cost of the bridge if and when the bridge is constructed. In the meantime the
$74,000 stays in our back account drawing interest instead of yours.
Corrie: Did you do that or you say we should do that.
Smith: That was just a comment we had in public works concerning this.
Corrie: (Inaudible)
Morrow: Well given the time factor that is limited in terms of the road trust account I
think that makes good sense or a letter of we will pay you when we catch you or you
catch us.
Rountree: You have to remember it is just a request.
Morrow: Well then the answer is no. Don't send them a letter.
Smith: Thank you, did you want me to pen that letter in that regard or is that something
that should come from the Council?
Bentley: Just put we may.
Corrie: I guess that is a Council decision I know what I would (inaudible)
Rountree: I think it ought to come from the City I don't think you should be put in that
position.
Smith: I would be happy to write a draft.
Corrie: You write the draft and I will sign it or I will have the Council approve my
signature. But I agree with Charlie that it should come from the City.
Smith: One other thing I have on Tully Park is that Settlers Irrigation District has
requested an easement for the pipeline that crosses our park. We tiled that ditch several
years ago but I don't believe an easement, we can't find record of an easement ever
being executed between the City of Meridian and Settlers for that pipe line. So I have a
legal description drawn up and an easement document to transfer an easement to
Settlers Irrigation District from the City of Meridian.
Bentley: Are they going to tell us that we can't build on it?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 36
Smith: Well no permanent structures, that is typical for easements for pipe lines.
Bentley: Does that interfere with anything that we are doing?
Smith: No it doesn't it just goes across the grass land. It doesn't interfere with our plan
at all. That is about the only thing we would have over it is pathways and sprinkler
systems and grass.
Morrow: So you have the easement all prepared and it is executed in favor of Settlers
Irrigation District.
Smith: Yes
Morrow. I would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the
easement with Settlers Irrigation.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. Do you have any questions of me on anything
else, any other projects?
Corrie: Counselor?
Crookston: I have nothing.
Corrie: Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, we have an issue with and Dean I thought was going to be here to
head up the issue with respect to an irrigation issue on Meridian Road with I think in
your packet you have a memorandum from Dean talking about the irrigation ditch
located at 2250 N. Meridian Road. I think Shari maybe doing some research into that, it
was my understanding that Dean would be here to kind of head this discussion up but
maybe I misunderstood that. So if we can wait for just a moment on that. A couple of
other just quick items that I had. As soon as Shari gets back then we can ask questions
of her. The first is that we have talked before about the sewer plant and the fact that is
in Ada County and basically it is only about $400 feet outside the City limits going down
the road. We have also had a discussion from the standpoint of an annexation path to
get there. I have generated numbers based on the cost of building permits given the
construction schedule for 1997-98 that we will be paying to Ada County at the sewer
plant if we don't annex our own plan. That number is $22,172 that we are going to be
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 37
paying Ada County in building permit fees. We had the discussion some time ago about
avenues of annexation. It seems to me that it is not appropriate that we begin to think
about that in earnest because we are talking real money here with respect to building
permit fees that we would be paying to somebody and in my opinion shouldn't be paying
those except to ourselves in terms of cost savings. So I guess from my perspective
what I would like to see us do is given the difficulties on either side of the road in terms
of trying an annexation path that I think Gary calculated we are 400 feet or slightly less
than that from the current city limits to the entrance of the sewer plant. 1 would like to
see us construct or look at an annexation ordinance using the road way as the path of
annexation. It is my thinking that strip annexations are for annexation paths that are
much longer and that this is worth the goal. So it is a topic for discussion.
Rountree: We are going to have the same kind of cost with the new water tank for the
park land.
Morrow. I got a break down on the water, our building permit cost there is $7523.
Rountree: Still too much.
Morrow: Obviously we pay that because we are constructing in the County and at that
point the water plant operation and the park site is that two parcels of property between
us and the current City limits. One of which owned by the Presbyterian church on the
corner is undergoing some sort of activity in the county, it is a lot reduction I think is
what it amounts to. So, as I recall from their testimony they were not opposed to being
annexed (inaudible) at the time to get to us or the time for us to get to them.
Rountree: In fact they wanted (inaudible). For discussion I think we need to pursue
specifically for those sewer plant but for both if we can do it.
Morrow: You are talking basically $30,000 between the two.
Corrie: I have some reservations of that, you know my reasoning there. I guess the
Council can make that decision, I do have some reservations.
Morrow. And I understand your reservations and I think it is an area that admittedly we
go into that we are taking a bit of gamble. Here we are not injuring anybody we are
annexing all (inaudible) short distance (inaudible)
Corrie: Park, you could have some ramifications and that other (inaudible) just
something to throw at you to think about. Because if you are there they are going to
piggy back on that as far as annexation which is something for you to think about. I
would love to have all of those in the City limits as well. We also have one other
problem that you may not be aware of. I was just told this afternoon so we need to do
that in executive session.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 38
Morrow. I offer that as a point of discussion that we will talk about at our strategic
planning next week so you guys can think about it then. Shari, I was deferring until you
had some information for us with respect to the irrigation issue.
Stiles: Mr. mayor and Council did you all receive a copy of a letter from Dean with
regard to an irrigation ditch problem with the Barrett's and Sciscoe's. Dean has reached
the end of what he is able to do. He has spent so much time on this one project that
either the Council has got to make a decision or the City Attorney. I think there are
some issues besides just the ditch. There seem to be some problem between the
neighbors that they are not able to work out. The issue has been that there is a ditch
that exists between Aspen Hills Apartments and it is located on the Barrett's property
since 1976 as verified by Topog records. The ditch now is not being maintained. The
Barrett's do not want the Sciscoe's on their property to maintain it themselves. The
irrigation district or the water master that has gone out to look at it said that the ditch is
not being maintained and is definitely a problem. It may be that the Barrett's Mrs. Barrett
and Mr. Sciscoe need to get up and tell you their side of the story and get it resolved.
Dean is not able to spend the amount of time that he spent on this one issue. It is hours
every week. Mr. Sciscoe has his side and Mrs. Barrett has her side. If that is all right
with Council I think we are at a point we don't know what to do.
Corrie: Counselor, have you looked at this?
Crookston: No I have not.
Corrie: I know that we have a civil problem
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might offer some insight into this. I have toured the property
spoken at length with Dean today. Very candidly my impression now is becoming we
have a couple folk here that are trying to do the right thing based on their belief of what
the facts were when they bought their properties. The issue as we continue to research
become very confusing from the standpoint in talking to Mrs. Barrett she has spoken
with Mr. Bill Henson of Nampa Meridian, Mr. Cunningham who is the local ditch rider of
the lateral indicates that the water comes from Settlers. Well the reality is that both is
true. Nampa Meridian administers and Settlers provides the water. So essentially you
have a couple of different irrigation entities there handling the water. On your maps that
are before you at the end of the pink is where the end of the irrigation district
responsibility for the water. The bluish color is the Watt's lateral that is administered by
Mr. Cunningham who is the local ditch rider for the local ditch association. If you will
look on your map the yellow highlighting indicates the line with the x's on it, the ditch in
terms of that line is the ditch line. The map indicates that historically the ditch was on
the south side of the property line until a point about where the houses are located and
that juncture it crossed over onto the north side of the property line and then (End of
Tape) the issue the approval of the Aspens was done in such a manner that the Aspens
are now taking water out of the lateral of the Watts lateral at a different point then the
take out point that was on that shows here on your map and are running water through
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 39
their project, irrigation water through their project through a ditch and manhole system
with a pressurized irrigation system. Historically by virtue of this map there was no take
out point on the. There was not two take out points on the Aspen property. When the
Barrett's purchased their property it is my understanding from Mrs. Barrett that the
actual supply to the Sciscoe property was on the north corner coming across the
property across over the top of their septic system. That the ditch that you are seeing
that is in the yellow highlighting had been covered by the former owner of the property
and then was tied into the remaining portion of the yellow at the intersection of the two
lines and apparently serviced what is now the Sciscoe property or from that point.
When the Barrett's bought the property from that juncture they moved the ditch from
going across the top of their septic system back to on the north side of their property
line parallel to the yellow highlighting on your maps but on their property to hook to and
feed what is the Sciscoe property and tied it back in together with the ditch that is by the
buildings. If you look at the elevations that are on the maps it seems to indicate that
probably at one point in time and the ditch configuration that is on the Watts lateral that
the entire Aspen property more than likely was irrigated from East to West. Mr.
Cunningham has indicated that it was primarily sugar beets that were grown in that
area. So, on this topo map it clearly shows that there was a parallel ditch system there
which would indicate that is how the irrigation was done. So having said that as some
background it is clearly very confusing as to what goes where and who gets what. I
guess from that perspective it would be time for Mrs. Barrett and Mr. Sciscoe both to
present to us as a Council their points of what the issues are and (inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. Morrow, the 2210 H. Meridian Road is that Sciscoe's property, 2250 is
Morrow: That is correct.
Corrie: Let's hear stories here, Mr. Morrow, do you have anybody that wants to go first
or have you talked to them?
Morrow: I had not talked to them, I had anticipated that Dean would be conducting and
apparently I misunderstood or he did or both of us did.
Corrie: Well B starts first (inaudible)
Bartlett: I did notice your sign about 3 minutes this has been going on for 3 months I am
not sure I can do this in 3 minutes. I do have some pictures available if any of you would
like to see them. I am going to give you from my perspective what I see that has
happened over the past couple of years. Like Mr. Morrow said when we moved there,
there was not a ditch running from East to West, it was across the property the other
way. We put it there, we put it from East to West never knowing where it was. I have
never seen this information that you had. Dean was supposed to supply it to me but he
did not. Anyway so I have never known that there was a ditch from East to West, we
just dug it there for our own personal use. But as the events happened I would like to
go over them with you because I think it is important because I don't think everything
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 40
has been treated fairly here and equally. On about July 8th I received a call from Shari
Stiles advising me that she had a complaint from Mr. Sciscoe about accessing our
property to get irrigation water. And that the weeds along and I call it a trench was not
allowing him adequate water flow. There has always been an issue of water flow
although tonight the water has been running since 12:30 this afternoon, I left at 7:30
double checked it again, it is still wasting along the ditch. So that is not a true
statement. Anyway Ms. Stiles stated to me that she should be the mediator and I
agreed to meet with her and Mr. Sciscoe so we did that on July 10th. During the
meeting I made an attempt to show Ms. Stiles a problem that Mr. Sciscoe and his whole
family was trespassing across our property any time they wanted at any place that they
wanted even where we were having backyard barbecues and outside projects. Of
course it got to be really irritating. In an attempt to resolve the matter I suggested that
Sciscoe walk around the Aspen Hills Development to open the temporary head gate,
but he didn't want to do that. Because he didn't want to do that I agreed to move the
wood along our fence to provide him a walk way. But with that I asked him to sign a
release of liability for the privilege of accessing our property. Mr. Sciscoe didn't know
whether he wanted to do that and he would have to think about it. Because Mr. Sciscoe
was abusing the privilege of accessing our property I told he and Ms. Stiles that he must
stick to a water schedule and should be only Mr. Sciscoe and not his entire family that
access our property. He didn't want to stick to a water schedule because it wasn't
convenient. At this point I told Ms. Stiles that the situation was out of hand and it was
ridiculous. Now this was back on July 8th that I said this to Ms. Stiles. Then at that point
is when Ms. Stiles openly admitted that she had made some mistakes with the Aspen
Hills Development and that she should have required Aspen Hills Development to
furnish Mr. Sciscoe with the irrigation water seeing as how his property sits right directly
in front of the Aspen Hills development. A few days later I called Ms. Stiles and left a
message on her voice mail letting her know that we had moved the wood along the
fence way allowing Mr. Sciscoe a walkway. Then I received a letter from telling me that
we were in violation from Dean Elhert that we were in violation of a City code
concerning weeds and waste matter and regarding the ditch and the downstream, to
allow down stream users a water head amount and pressure that they are legally
entitled to. At that point I called Mr. Elhert because I was shocked at receiving a letter
like this from the City of Meridian. We worked four years working on that property to
clean it up. I couldn't understand why we received a letter. So I asked him about that
and he said he was instructed by Ms. Stiles to write the letter. I told him I was shocked
and highly offended but he said something about having the back two acres done, we
have had it done every single year without somebody writing us a letter but I said we
would do that and we would call him and let him know. Then I asked him at the same
time have all the surrounding properties adjacent to me in front of Sciscoe, across by
the church did they receive a letter asking them to mow their weeds that were 8 inches.
No they didn't. So I asked Mr. Elhert why we were being singled out. His comment was
that Ms. Stiles had a complaint from Sciscoe. I told Dean that I would notify him when
the back two acres were done but as far as us cleaning the so called ditch if Mr.
Sciscoe wanted to use it because we have never used it, it would be up to him to keep it
clean. At that same time on 7125 1 asked Mr. Elhert for a code book. I said I would like
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 41
to see your code book and he said it is 3 inches thick I can't give it to you but I can give
you a copy of the what codes he was referring to in his letter. So I called him back,
got an anonymous phone call and so I called him back and said let's take a look at how
the irrigation pipe runs through Aspen Hills could have easily furnished Sciscoe with
water had it been done properly in the beginning and would have avoided all of this
hassle that we have been going through. So he met me out at the property we walked
the same identical property line as Mr. Morrow and I did. I asked him if he was aware of
the irrigation pipe running right through Aspen Hills he said no. I asked him at this point
where are we, what do we need to do and what is next. And he said he could certainly
see my point but he would have to talk to Ms. Stiles his supervisor. Then I said to him
listen this has gone on too long, too far. Let's try to bring some higher officials in try to
get this resolved because I don't want to keep hassling over this, it is ridiculous. He said
he would let me know in about two weeks. Then he also, at the same time because of
the letter, the letter stated about the water flow and adequate water flow to the down
stream users. I said to him I said there is always waste water coming down that ditch
what do you mean he is not getting adequate water flow. Dean said to me at that point
if it happens again you call me and I will come out right then so I can see. I said fine and
I did that. I called him and left a message on his voice mail and I said here is your proof
you come out and you take a look at this. But then later he told me during another
conversation he said he couldn't have made it. I asked him about the weeds
surrounding us, you wrote us a letter have all the other property owners received a letter
to remove all of their weeds. No, I said what about the church? He said well those
people who work over there do volunteer work. I have never gotten paid for doing mine.
Then Dean told me he would get an answer within two weeks of what we needed to do
next. He would talk to Ms. Stiles about it. So July 29 1 called him and he was out of the
office. On September 2nd I called him again and he was out sick, on September 0 1
called him again and I said what is the status report with this situation. He told me I had
to clean out the ditch for Sciscoe because they City of Meridian couldn't possibly ask
Aspen Hills to provide Sciscoe with water. I then reminded Dean that we dug the trench
for our own personal use, it was not there for Sciscoe's use. I told him I was going to
cover up the trench and he and Ms. Stiles would have to deal with the problems that city
of Meridian created by not giving Sciscoe water when Aspen Hills irrigation pipe went in.
Mr. Elhert said to me I strongly advise you not to do that. I then asked him for the
names of the City and County Councilmen that were over my district. He said he would
get me that information in the afternoon. In the mean time I started making phone calls,
1 located Mr. Morrow, also located the County Commissioners because we could not get
this resolved and 1 felt like the City of Meridian was not doing their responsibility as far
as supplying Sciscoe water in the first place. Like I said Ms. Stiles already admitted that
she made a mistake and that she should have done that in the beginning. So I just
didn't feel like the burden of responsibility should lay completely on my husband and
myself. So I got a hold of Mr. Morrow and Mr. Morrow and I walked the property as we
looked over the situation we talked about the weeds around the surrounding properties.
met with Mr. Morrow on September 5th. On September 5th and actually I received it on
the 7th I got another letter from Dean saying the City respectfully requests that all weeds
be removed from the ditch and allow the downstream users adequate water flow.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 42
Failure to remove this is a fine up to $300 or 6 months in jail. I was shocked, I called Mr.
Morrow I said something is going on. I feel like I am being harassed, 1 am being singled
out, I am being discriminated against. And for what, I couldn't quite understand the just
of all of this. So I asked, I left, I called Dean and I said Dean why did you send me this
other letter. I said because I asked you to come by the property, I left a voice mail and
asked you to come by the property to see that there was plenty of water to go around
and that it was being wasted. He said well I couldn't make it. In turn I called Mr.
Morrow, told Mr. Morrow that I was losing my sense of humor and shortly after that I got
a call from Dean saying that he would resend his letter and that it would be dealt with at
the City Council meeting. Again I have pictures to prove what it is that 1 am saying but
as a property owner and a resident of the City of Meridian this should have never gone
this far. It should have been resolved back when the development was being taken
care of. I should not be singled out if I am going to receive a letter everybody in
Meridian should receive a letter. I think treatment by City of Meridian has been very
unfair. Can I offer anything else? 1 have made an attempt to resolve this. I made an
attempt to resolve it at the first meeting with Sciscoe and Stiles. But obviously
something is going on because I could not get it resolved.
Corrie: I have a question, is that ditch a waste water ditch or is that an irrigation ditch a
supply water ditch?
Bartlett: Okay, the trench that we dug that everybody is talking about is a ditch that is
just to us just a trench that we were going to irrigate the back 2 acres with. We have
never used it, we have never had to because the guy on the other side floods us out all
the time. So we just don't ever have to use it. So, but as he runs it down that trench or
ditch over to water his property then there is another part that veers off and that is
where the waste water, actually it is not waste water it is just wasted water and there is
a code against that also.
Corrie: Any further questions at this point?
Bentley: Is that length of ditch is it on an easement?
Bartlett: Not that I am aware of?
Morrow: To answer your question Glenn is the ditch that the Barrett's dug after they
bought the property is on their side of the property line. So it would have been, and this
is all extremely confusing. I think the real problems were started long before these two
folk ever owned this ground or these pieces of ground and before Aspen was there.
Because this map clearly indicates that the original supply ditch for their was on the
south side of the property line. They dug a ditch there not knowing that there had ever
been a ditch in that area.
Barrett: So I guess I have a couple more, I think that as far as I am concerned I would
like to propose what I classify as a resolution that would resolve all the issues. It would
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 43
keep Sciscoe and his family on their property and it would resolve the problem that
should have been resolved a long time ago. I don't know what drawing you have there
but there is an irrigation pipe that runs through, do you have that there, an irrigation pipe
that runs through Aspen Hills, how that runs through there. I have kind of colored some
things (inaudible) On the drawing, I have kind of labeled them as best I could. I put up
here Barrett's property, Sciscoe's property and Aspen Hills. Along here is a line, I drew
a green line like in between here, that is where that irrigation approximately that is
where that irrigation pipe runs through Aspen Hills. Again I have pictures to back that
up. It comes back, runs out through a vacant field here just on the other side of
Sciscoe's just on the south side of Sciscoe's. Now I don't, and it runs underneath the
fence. To me there is no reason why that irrigation pipe because it is so close to
Sciscoe's property can't be just routed right over to the back yard of Sciscoe and
because that water runs through that pipe all the time also. So Sciscoe could have all
the water he wanted any time he wanted it. Does that make sense where I mention
that. I can't see where it would be a large deal to just turn that pipe instead of to the left
turn that pipe over to Sciscoe to the right and let him have his irrigation water.
Corrie: I guess one of the questions I have Mr. Sciscoe is where the original water was
coming from for his property is it your side or the other side I am a little bit confused
here as you can understand. You are confused I am even more so.
Barrett: Before Mr. Sciscoe moved in Mrs. Himerich owned all that property that Aspen
developed. Never did Mrs. Himerich irrigate from any portion of our property and I think
she was there at least one to two years. We have had the property 4 years and she was
there one or two before Aspen Hills developed. Never did she have, she had irrigation
water but she never accessed it from our property whatsoever.
Corrie: Council, any further questions or things that you might have?
Rountree: 1 guess a point I need is you don't have any easement or anything to the
favor of the neighbors for conveyance of irrigation water through your property?
Barrett: Not to my knowledge.
Corrie: Any other questions? We may hear the other side now and then come back.
Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Sciscoe?
Sciscoe: Mr. Mayor and Council members, this problem started quite a while back the
times that Mrs. Barrett has referred to a reference was originally when we purchased
the property I have personally no recollection of that ditch not being there originally. I
may be wrong because I can't say honestly that I look back there to check to see that is
where it was. I knew the place was getting irrigated, I am not sure where Mrs. Himerich
got her water if it wasn't from that original ditch that was there on the plat if I remember
right in 1976. The point of my family coming on the property was before Aspen Hills
was developed we went up on the property up the ditch line to have them help me clear
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 44
out the ditch so we could irrigate at that time. After that time actually before that time I
was told that they didn't like us on their property. So I insisted on having my family my
children come up the ditch to help clean it for that year and to access to get to the water
for the irrigating. That happened over two years ago, it has not gone on since then. The
problems for this year have started because I was going on their property after Aspen
Hills put up the fence and the Barrett's had put some wood and stuff along the fence I
had to walk around a little more onto their property to get up to access the ditch. Mr.
Barrett was getting upset at me coming up there the times I have gone up there have
been not even on my irrigation days because I tried to stay away from their property as
much as I can. I don't have time to be making problems for people. I am not the kind of
person that wants to make problems for people. But my irrigation days is every 10
days. I would go up there to irrigation not necessarily on my day because the ditch rider
Mr. Cunningham told me that since there is plenty of water and he knows that we work
during the week that if it is available go ahead and take it when you are home because
of the time to (inaudible). Then right before in the beginning of July I went up there to
spray the weeds because they are getting way to thick on the ditch and affecting the
water flow. I did it by hand, took a two gallon hand sprayer and walked up across the
Barrett's property and along the ditch line to spray then I would have to come back and
refill it. Well after two times Jack was out there and I said hello to him and he just looked
at me and said what are you doing on my property, you have no right on my property.
By that time I have gone over the City laws on it and the State laws on it and I knew I
had the right of way. But he didn't really care if I had the right of way or not. So he got
upset at me but I went ahead and continued to spray the ditch and that was when on
that same day I believe that Doris came over to our business maybe we need to get
together with the City to resolve this. I said that would be fine with me let's just get it
resolved. She said she would call the City. Well after a couple of weeks I hadn't heard
anything so I talked to Ms. Stiles and so we set up the meeting and she got a hold of
Mrs. Barrett and we got together on the meeting. Mrs. Barrett's answer to the problem
was for me to walk around Aspen Hills up to the gate to up it up there and if I had to do
anything to the ditch to go around that way and then right back down. I said well that is
a long way for me to go especially if I have to go and clean it out. What I was basically
told was they didn't want me on their property for any reason. That was their answer.
All they did was go over and say hi to Jack and at that time when in Shari's presence
she said well just don't say anything to Jack just don't talk to him. So since that time of
that meeting with Ms. Stiles I have not gone on their property walked up that ditch.
have always gone around Aspen Hills and then have walked down the ditch to clear it
out and have gone back up opened it up and gone around the other way. Today I did go
up there, I had a meeting with Mr. Elhert because he wanted to check the flow and how
long it took to get down the ditch. So we went up there, we opened it up, we went down
the other end. I had a flow until it came out of the pipe. After that meeting it took about
45 minutes for that to happen, then at 11:00 or right before 11:00 1 went up and shut the
gate. If there is water flowing out of there I don't know why if somebody has played with
the gate or what. Now, I am not sure just exactly What else I can do in this scenario.
That ditch was originally there, and again if it wasn't there when the Barrett's bought the
property I am the lesser. I don't know if it was or not. But I know even if it was buried it
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 45
would have been buried illegally because it was a ditch an irrigation ditch. By the law it
says you can't do that without permission even with permission it is hard to do because
as far as I know that is the only place that Mrs. Himerich was getting her water. That is
when I started checking out the laws on as far as my right of way to walk up there. That
is when I started checking into the City laws on who is responsible for keeping it clean. I
felt it was an even compromise if I am going to walk around and open up that ditch then
they be held responsible as the City Ordinances say to keep that ditch clean then I don't
have to go on their property. Then they won't have to worry about it. When Mrs. Barrett
brought up the weeds in their back lot as Dean had spoken to her the only weeds I was
talking about were the ones in the ditch affecting the flow. That is the only ones I am
talking about, I don't know if anything else, I do know that when up to water the next
time that they had mowed their whole back acreage and that Mr. Barrett has driven his
ATV down there to kind of put down the weeds in the ditch and it looks like he did spray
it too. I know when I sprayed it wouldn't have covered what he covered. But there are
still weeds and debris in there that make it very difficult. When I went up there today
with Mr. Elhert it took there are 7 or 8 very good size gopher holes that (inaudible) so 1
had to go back through and dig them out and walk back up etc. I suppose that is all I
have to say about it because that is basically what has been happening. It has all been
recent as far as the problems in that regard. If I have walked on their property when
they have been having a get together or something I must, I wasn't aware of it and it
has never been my intention to invade their privacy to go on their property when it was
not necessary. I have no reason to be harassing my only neighbor. I just wanted to be
able to get my water reasonably like 1 am entitled. If they didn't want me coming on their
property like they stated to me so many times then 1 just felt well it is within the law for
them to clean the ditch. If they like me coming on to clean it and to take care of it then
that is a fine compromise to me. By law they are supposed to take care of it and I will
stay off of it. As long as I don't have to walk it to clean it and I am getting the head flow I
need then that is all I need.
Corrie: Who bought these properties, was Barrett there first (inaudible). As far as you
know water has always come down that where the yellow line is.
Sciscoe: And I assume that probably Mr. Cunningham would be able to verify it, he is
the one that has been around the longest and he has become ditch rider by default. I
am sure he knows even if it was Barrett at one time it may have been. As far as the
pipe going through Aspen Hills that, I think that is just a run off from when they are
pumping pressurized irrigation into their apartments for watering. I know Shari
presented that to me at one time when we were having the problems last year and they
built about bringing their pressurized down to us or getting us access. We did talk about
tiling the ditch because their fence they put up I would say is about 4 feet of that ditch.
So even if the Barrett's wanted to clean it by burning they couldn't without jeopardizing
losing that fence. I know the Barrett's and I both brought that up to the City at that time
because in the book it talks about any ditch that is running adjacent to the property line
should be tiled. Evidently Thomas Development had the ability to make sure that didn't
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 46
really happen. That is part of the problem for Barrett's and us both at this time. If it has
been tiled at that time it wouldn't be happening at all.
Morrow: Technical question, where the water that comes out that goes through Aspen
in the pipe that is close to your property is it technically possible to irrigate from that
pipe?
Sciscoe: The pipe that I have seen where it is coming out is very Close to James Court.
That is on the other side. If you look at the map there that rectangle in front where there
is a vacant lot is about % acre and ours is almost a half acre. It used to be one parcel
we purchased that northerly half from the Dorado Development who owns that property
who was in conjunction with Thomas Development when they developed that whole
area. So there may be a pipe running under there but as far as I know as far as close to
our property I am not sure where they pipe if it comes down and runs at a right angle
and goes over to that corner or how they ran it. It is all under ground it is just a run off
pipe it looks like to me for their pressurized system.
Morrow: I guess the answer I was hoping for was that you would be able to tell by
elevation either it would work or doesn't work in terms of water flowing onto your
property. I know that I have seen the pipe it is reasonably close but I don't know in
terms of elevation whether water can get there and go out.
Sciscoe: Mr. Morrow am I correct in saying, to make sure I am looking at the same one
that is draining over by the corner of Meridian Road and James Court, is that where you
are seeing it coming out.
Morrow: No, essentially where I am seeing it coming out is very close, this is the 1976
map if you look on here it shows this ditch you are referring to as clearly on the Aspen
property it is not on the Barrett property. It crosses over to the Barrett property over
here. Mrs. Barrett is indicating that when they bought the property on their property
there was no ditch that had been back filled that the water came across here and into
here. Here is the parallel ditch that was apparently done when this was irrigating from
east to west in terms of the property that Aspen now sits on. It was my observation that
someplace in here was where the discharge line and Aspen now has a take out point in
here that comes in. Now they have the line marked as sewer manholes but in reality
Dean checked those for us in the last couple of days and it is an irrigation system that
runs through there. There is a pump station someplace in here. Then the line continues
on all the way down and discharges here. My question was is it technically possible at
this discharge point to irrigate on this property of yours. That would be a situation in
terms of elevations, I don't know what the answer is.
Sciscoe: To me when we went down this ditch right here the Barrett's property it flows
into our backyard here (inaudible) and into the drainage ditch here. Originally when we
moved there, there was a ditch behind our property that kind of barriered off the housing
the house where we live on our property and the farmed area. Now we still have this
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 47
one running over into our property but again I haven't seen exactly, I thought it was
coming out right over here. I am not sure if it was back in here and draining out. I didn't
notice anything over here in these weeds etc. that are here now. If it is possible for me
to get water out of there and from that elevation to water our property I don't have any
problem with that.
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Corrie: Any question Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Do you have in your deed acquisition transition papers indication that you
have water delivered to that property in your favor an easement for that delivery
system?
Sciscoe: I would have to check Mr. Rountree to be sure
Rountree: You haven't checked?
Sciscoe: No sir, because when I got there I had been irrigating out of this as long as I
have been there and from the drawings I assumed that ditch had been there a long
time. An established ditch from my understanding can't be refused the water and that is
the only place I understood it was coming from when I moved there.
Corrie: You definitely had water rights?
Sciscoe: I know I am paying the irrigation company for it.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Mr. Morrow, you walked that you are more familiar with it then I am, do you have
any suggestions, maybe try that other route?
Morrow: I have to tell you guys from my standpoint where I am at now in terms of
thinking this through is here are two people that clearly didn't have anything to do with
creating the situation that they are in. Each bought in good faith and assumed that they
were trying to do the right thing. There is more than enough conflicting information here
to indicate that by virtue of dates and what has gone on and some knowledge of the
former owner of the Barrett property would indicate that this is not inconsistent with
some of their performance. The point being is that it is a tough deal but it seems to me
that the only real solution at this point is kind of a live and let live solution to the
problem. Irrigation water in developed areas as all of us know having been involved in
that are very tough issues. So it is, I guess from my perspective my first preference
would be to look and see if it is possible to irrigate out of the overflow pipe from Aspen if
it works at all. Barring that at this juncture see if we can't back up and see if we can't
encourage some help and cooperation between the two folk understanding it is a bad
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 48
deal for each. This is one of those things that if folk want to pursue it past this level to
(inaudible) my good friend and colleague Mr. Counselor and his group of folk that none
of the four of us are going to win. Neither the Barrett's the Sciscoe's, the City of
Meridian or the Irrigation we are all going to be cash poor. So having said that I think
that from our perspective as a City or at least from my perspective if the thing can't work
with the Aspen tie in then what needs to happen is that we need to approach it from a
standpoint of where the Barrett's and the Sciscoe's and the City of Meridian sit down
and say look this is a bad deal for all of us but we need to work our way through this
and get on with life. I think because of long term given what my understanding of the
properties are being development properties they are going to be businesses or
redeveloped into something else. In the short term we solve the problem as best we
can.
Corrie: I have a question, I am still not clear Walt, on this irrigation ditch you have a line
here, is that on the Barrett's property that all the way down?
Morrow: Now historically it was not, historically it was on the Aspen Hills property. It
made the cross over about the Barrett place of start. When the Barrett's purchased this
property the prior owners had covered over any ditch that may have been on their side
of the water and they were routing the water across this (inaudible) across the top of
their septic system to this pick up point and then supplying apparently the Sciscoe
house by here. The property where Aspen's is by virtue of this double ditch that shows
on the map was irrigating out, coming out of a head gate located here was irrigating
from east to west and then discharging into the drain right at this point here. So it is my
observation now at this juncture on the Barrett side of the property they relocated this
ditch here because of crossing the top of their septic system. They ran it parallel down
to this point and hooked it up on their property. So my suspicion is that this ditch here
that ultimately serviced that Aspen is using now as a take out point here for their pump
station and then they are piped all the way through a manhole system to discharge out
right in this area someplace in there with the excess water.
Corrie: Hearing the Barrett's side that they are willing to move wood and let them get to
that point I am encouraged there. Of course everybody has a right to privacy at the
same time so that is a pretty difficult one you are right. Go ahead and come up here if
you want to talk too, if we can work this thing out between the two of you I would be
much happier. But if we can't then they have to go some other way.
Barrett: I guess my question is it is just like Mr. Sciscoe said there is no sense in having
two neighbors at each others throats. I sincerely believe that we have heard tonight, all
that I went through all the research that we have both done and in your City in your
development book it says adjacent ditches be tiled. If that was truly an irrigation ditch
and we approached Ms. Stiles on it right when all that was happening why wasn't it
tiled. Your development book says it is supposed to be. So if it is truly a ditch why
wasn't it. Why was it just like Mr. Sciscoe we tried to approach the situation when the
fence was going up because we knew we couldn't burn along there. Why wasn't it
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 49
resolved then. Why did it have to wait until it got to this point when City of Meridian
could have resolved it then it should have. Should never had put Mr. Sciscoe and I in
this position and I feel like that is where the burden of responsibility is. Now just like Mr.
Morrow said if everybody wants to go to court and everybody wants to sit and fight I
guess that is everybody's choice. If they really want that so called ditch which we dug
ourselves and paid to have that dug if the City of Meridian really wants to keep it there
then for all the harm that the City of Meridian has caused both of us then maybe they
ought to tile it. If they are so set in making sure that ditch stays there and that Mr.
Sciscoe uses it and because it was City of Meridian's error something is really wrong
here we have wasted a lot of time. I am a tax payer it is my money that is going out the
tubes too. But we did attempt to resolve this back a long time ago.
Corrie: I can understand your point. The way I looked at the ordinance if there was a
ditch there or whatever water was on there it is through and to and required and it has
gotten all jumbled up. It is a mess and I don't know whether the City was going to pipe
that line for anybody to take care of that. Of course that is a Council decision too but I
don't see that. So I guess maybe we better take your thoughts Mr. Morrow and see if
we can't do it that way then and approach it whatever way we can. If we can't use it that
way (inaudible) from the other way that would satisfy both of you, you are wanting water
and you are wanting to be responsible for all that you have gone through and I
understand that perfectly. So maybe we ought to try and see if can't get to Aspen Hills
and get that on the other side of his water and that would take care of your problem and
his water as far as water concerns. If he has water rights he is entitled to that water and
how he gets it there is where the problem is starting. (Inaudible) there are some errors
that have probably been made here and we all are suffering from it now. Now the
question is how do we get this solved and maybe we should go in and look at that.
Barrett: And I agree that we have all made mistakes, we have all made mistakes
through this but the burden of responsibility should not be just because the City wants to
save money should not be thrown onto two innocent parties. It should have been
resolved back when we tried to resolve it in the beginning. But it wasn't it was let go. It
was justified and like I said it clearly showed in your development book that if it was an
adjacent ditch it requires that an adjacent ditch be tiled and it was not.
Corrie: Mr. Sciscoe does your property go all the way back to that other ditch too?
Sciscoe: No sir mine it right in front of the Aspen Hills.
Corrie: So then what we are talking about in tiling is between your two properties.
Morrow: No Bob, the point is and I guess what I want to go back to is the original
mistakes were made somewhere in the late 70's early 80's or whatever. I can see a
scenario here where the mid 80's where the Aspen folk and the City by virtue of seeing
the ditch on the Barrett property and thinking of that as a supply ditch to the Sciscoe
and that may have been the ditch that the Aspen property was irrigating out of. Well that
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 50
was the passage of time, (End of Tape) With respect to Mrs. Barrett's point the ditch on
her property when Aspen developed wasn't an adjacent ditch. It was a drain off ditch
that they had dug themselves. The supply ditch running to the west was on the south
side of the property line, it was on the Aspen property. It wasn't being used or hadn't
been used or wasn't readily apparent to the eye.
Sciscoe: Mr. Morrow which ditch were you talking about there?
Morrow. This ditch here was originally on the south side of the property line on the
Aspen property it was not on the Barrett property, it clearly shows that.
Sciscoe: I see you are just saying it is over on the, it would be on the northerly border
Morrow: That is correct. So I guess, it may not have been apparent to anybody and the
assumptions were being made that this was the ditch over here when in reality it was
Mrs. Barrett and her husband that had dug the ditch for other reasons, not as a supply
ditch.
Sciscoe: Excuse me Mr. Morrow, if that wasn't the supply ditch for the property what
was?
Morrow Well the ditch that shows on this map was the supply ditch, the Barrett ditch
that you are using currently is on the north side of the property line.
Sciscoe: As long as I have been there I have been getting water on the property and
that is why I don't understand, if this wasn't there when I moved in then where was I
getting my water from?
Morrow. What I am suggesting to you Mr. Sciscoe is that you were getting your water
through a ditch that ran down the Barrett property that originally didn't exist, it existed on
the south side of the property line on the Aspen property. They dug the ditch
themselves and that apparently when the Barrett's bought their property this water
coming to this point here was taken out right over here and came across here and went
this way. All of that stuff was done long before the two of you were there which
changed the original way which all of this stuff irrigated in here. So that is my point,
everybody here thinks that they are trying to do the right thing and they are based on
the facts that they know and understand given the time frame. My point to you is that
the time frame that existed when the two of you were involved in 1976 is radically, the
facts are radically different than existed when you guys bought your properties. In
fairness to our City staff and the Aspen folk some of this could have been easily
concealed and neither of them knowing either.
Rountree: The question I have is there is no apparent information before me that the
Sciscoe's acquired that property with irrigation delivery system intact. Just because you
have a water right does not necessarily mean there is a conveyance. We all have water
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 51
rights and the conveyance could have been sold by the owner of their property when
they sold the back part to Aspen's. I guess my question for Counsel is just because
water happens to be running down a trench or a ditch that somebody dug does that
then give anyone a right to use that for conveyance irrigation unless there is some kind
of an easement in their favor for delivery of water down that conveyance?
Crookston: There is a ditch running through their property but they have no water right?
Rountree: If you had a ditch if at your place you put a ditch from the lateral to your
backyard so you could irrigate out of it does that mean your neighbor then has the right
to utilize to connect to that ditch and have water delivered to their property?
Crookston: No
Rountree: There has to be come mechanism to establish that corridor of conveyance
either by easement or prescription or something I would think.
Crookston: The only reason there is water in my ditch is because I have brought it onto
my property.
Rountree: I think that it seems to be the issue here is that yes at some point in time
there was a delivery system for the Sciscoe property and it didn't involve the Barrett
property at any time by any kind of easement. When the parcel was split up the back
half developed originally owned by the same person. They may have had a delivery
system up to their homestead site through that. When they sold it off that delivery
system was gone.
Crookston: In your example when 1 bring the water from the let's say the Eight Mile
lateral onto my property I have to have some means of taking it off my property which
the only reasonable way would be to run the waste back into the Eight Mile lateral so it
does not go onto any other property owners property.
Barrett: I do know and I am trying to think this through as 1 hear Mr. Morrow mention
that ditch, there was a ditch on the, I am not real good at east, north, west, on the south
side of Aspen Hills. Because we drove through it as a short cut. Now that you mention
that and I think back, we would drive through that as a short cut from James Court
where my mother in law lives over to Barrett property before the fence was there before
Sciscoe was there before any of these people were there. It was just a little shortcut but
you had to get to through the ditch first and then come up.
Morrow: Even Charlie, even with the historic ditch at one point here at the corner it did
cross over onto what is now the Barrett property and run parallel and then run south at
the back end of what is now the Sciscoe property.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 52
Rountree: But again my question to Wayne is if it is not established in some kind of a
deed or easement or whatever does any ditch fall under the state irrigation code?
Crookston: No
Bentley: Mr. Crookston, are you fully familiar with Idaho Irrigation laws?
Crookston: Not totally.
Bentley: Because they are weird
Crookston: I don't dispute that.
Bentley: 1 have a copy of them but I don't have them with me. I think you really need to
look at that because you will be shocked at some of the rules that are in there. I believe
Mr. Sciscoe is correct that if there is a ditch whether it is easement or not and it is
flowing water to a property and it is being used to deliver water that it cannot be
removed. It is like a road through the middle of your property that you allow the public
to ride on. If you think back to the days of Johnson's property up in the hills. When there
was a big argument over the road through that property it is virtually if I remember right
it is virtually the same scenario. If it is used then you can't just say well 1 don't want you
driving through anymore and throw up a fence.
Crookston: That is true but that doesn't relate to the question that Charlie had for me.
What he was asking was if I brought water onto my property from a lateral the only, I
have the right to use that water as long as (inaudible) but I also have the duty to get it
off my property so it doesn't interfere with the use of any other property owners.
Bentley: That is correct and that is also part of the water law. But what I am saying is to
take and just abandon it just like you abandon a road that the public has used that runs
through your property even though you put that road in if I remember correctly that the
water laws read virtually the same. You can't just up and throw a gate up across and
say you can't use it anymore.
Crookston: That is true if there are other users of that road or the water.
Bentley: In this case there is another user it is Mr. Sciscoe. That is the point I am
saying, you are going to have to pull that out and look at it because Idaho water laws
are real screwy.
Crookston: I agree with that.
Barrett: But what happened to the ditch on the south side of the property of Aspen Hills
that should have furnished him the water in the first place?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 53
Bentley: Somebody filled it in
Barrett: Yes they did and we questioned that at that time it happened an the ditch rider
said to us when you have money and you want to develop you can do anything you
want. And they did, exactly.
Morrow: So you are indicating that the ditch that was there was filled in by Aspen Hills?
Barrett: Yes I am
Sciscoe: And which ditch is that that we are talking about?
Morrow: The one on the south side of the property line.
Sciscoe: Aspen Hills was developed after we moved on the property, as a matter of fact
it was at least a year because Shari was verifying whether this and the Barrett's about
that development to make sure the layout was okay to make sure they weren't putting
apartments right up against the property line etc. it was a pretty drawn out process. The
whole time I was getting water out of that ditch. The gate has always been there.
Morrow: Which ditch?
Sciscoe: Whichever, the one that is right up here Mr. Morrow on the yellow light
(inaudible) there is a gate there, that has always been there as long as we have been
there.
Morrow: What I am suggesting to you is that in 1976 when this was made that gate was
on the south side of that property line it was on the Aspen Hills property or the Aspen
property.
Sciscoe: Again I think that is where we need Mr. Cunningham to verify whatever we
could including burying the ditch because it wasn't Thomas Development that buried the
ditch because it was there, I was using it.
Morrow. The one on the south side
Sciscoe: I don't know which side, according to Mrs. Barrett that ditch wasn't there when
they moved on. So they must have re -dug that was the only ditch I was using because
they moved on before we moved in. So, if there was a ditch on Thomas's development
property that was all (inaudible) they had not started development and I was using water
out of a ditch that had a gate on it. Which side of the property line we didn't know
because the pins hadn't gone in yet for the development. I think that is anybody's guess
on that one.
Morrow. (Inaudible)
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 54
Sciscoe: It very well may have been at one time but the ditch I had been using has
always been right where it is at.
Morrow: Well I guess in order to move this on where we really need to go to is we need
to find out if that water supply that comes through Aspen Hills can work for your
property.
Sciscoe: Again if it can that is fine too.
Morrow: If it can't then we will address that issue.
Barrett: I do know that by going around by Aspen Hills right directly behind Sciscoe's
they are and I don't know irrigation pipe although I can learn but there are irrigation
sprinkler heads that is just right up close to his back fence.
Sciscoe: The pressurized irrigation system is right there.
Barrett: I don't know whether that is possible, but there are little sprinkler heads right
behind Sciscoe's house.
Corrie: Well I guess we better check it out and find out what can be done I guess.
Morrow: Well obviously I think the first answer to the question Bob is that Mr. Sciscoe
needs to see if the water that is exiting there will irrigate his place. The water that is
wasting on past or through Aspen Hills will irrigate his place. Only he knows how his
place irrigates, that is clearly not something that any of us are capable of answering. If
the answer to the question is yes that will work and he can irrigate through that then we
need to make sure that is where we draw his water from. If the answer is no it can't
work then at that point we need to have a discussion between the Barrett's and the
Sciscoe's that allow the current system to work as best it can with some sort of
agreement between the two of them as to how the ditch is maintained and tied on and
off and so forth.
Corrie: How much time have you got with water in there so you can find that out?
Sciscoe: I believe the 15th of October.
Corrie: About a month, do you think that you can do that for us?
Sciscoe: I can research it out and find out. My first impression is that it is all downhill
from where we are at from the way the water flows now. So I will still check it out and
find out what we can on it. Mr. Morrow, if it is possible for us, if you can show me
exactly which one you are talking about as far as which one it is come out at in
relationship to our property so I know where we are at.
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 55
Barrett: I am more than happy to show you where it is at, I won't beat you up or
anything.
Corrie: I think we are making some progress here. Would that be alright with you to
check that out. And if we find it isn't then we will try to sit down and hammer this out
(inaudible).
Barrett: (Inaudible) I just wanted to added I don't know if it adds any bearing but there
never was any big problem until the development behind us and they put up the fence.
Before we tried not to go on their property because we understand there is no fence so
we could walk on the back lot there to take care of stuff. When that fence went up it
really caused a lot of problems.
Corrie: Let's see if we can't try that Mr. Sciscoe (inaudible)
Barrett: Can I have a clear understanding (inaudible) I have agreed to go over with
Sciscoe to show him where that pipe comes (inaudible) So we are going to do that and
as Mr. Rountree said (inaudible) find out whether he has water rights
Rountree: I think he has water rights, my question is does he have somewhere on
record that he has a conveyance of that water to his property.
Barrett: Is he also responsible for locating that information?
Morrow. I think the answer of the question goes both ways I think you also need to
research yours to see if there is an easement situation on your property that requires
you furnishing water to somebody else or requires transfer across your property.
Basically both of you need to be researching that.
Corrie: Like Charlie says technically both Charlie and I have water rights where we live
but we can't get the water because we can't bring it across there is no way to deliver to
us. So that is what we are trying to clear up here. If we can do that then we will bring it
back and see where we are (inaudible) or the best we can.
Barrett: And somebody will let me know that I won't be receiving any more letters.
Corrie: No, they were doing what they were supposed to do but we won't give you any
more letters for awhile anyway. It may be an apology letter later. Thank you Mrs. Barrett
and Mr. Sciscoe.
Morrow I have no further department reports
Corrie: Mr. Bentley?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 56
Bentley: I have a couple, three or four. We are having a problem and the chief and I
have discussed this and we are looking at some solutions with the annex building. The
owner is not willing to let us having parking over there. We in turn are looking at some
other options. Moving the total phone system over there is $20,000 and then when we
move out it will be another $20,000 to put it in someplace else. We are not going to do
any inside installations, walls or anything, we are using temporary walls, the partition
walls that we accumulated. What we are conceivably looking at doing is getting a
portable and putting it on the grass area to the, which direction chief, south of the
station. We can then conceivably run phone lines directly through the wall and into the
building at a substantial less cost and plus have access to the computers that are
already in existence. We are going to research this we feel that we can get this trailer or
this portable put in and save the $20,000 and turn around at some time in the future
with moving to a new location that we could resale the portable. It is still in the looking
station right but it is something that we are looking at. We will be in fire negotiations
tomorrow night and hopefully we will get it rapped up. I had Kenny work up some figures
that I have to go over yet and then I will pass out to everybody before we go to the
planning session on the possible start up of another station should we decide to go
through and put in place in a year. That is all I have.
Rountree: I have a question, do we have a session scheduled and what is the date.
Morrow. It would be the 23`d and the agenda will essentially be the same one we had at
our last planning session with the exception we will be fine tuning some ordinances
(inaudible) so on and so forth. I think it is appropriate now that the school year has
stated that we invite Bob Hailey for a brief presentation and have him bring us up to
speed (inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. Tolsma?
Tolsma: I have nothing
Corrie: I have one, I need to go into an executive session for about 5 minutes or I can
talk to each one of you individually. It is something that needs to be taken care of within
the next four days.
Morrow: Let's do the executive session.
Corrie: That is all I have
Bentley: So moved
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Okay moved and seconded to go into executive session, all those in favor?
Meridian City Council
September 16, 1997
Page 57
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Corrie: Okay, we are back from our executive session at 11:20 personnel matters were
discussed but no decisions were made. I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:21 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
ATTEST:
G. BERG, JR.,
APPROVED:
�p� »p�etlittlgytr7j
z� d� Thi
BEAL