HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes_CCSpecialMeeting_04272010ft,
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 27, 2010, 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS;
MCARTHUR 6:00 P.M., SCHOOL DISCTRICT #93 7:10 P.M., DOG ORDINANCE 7:20
P.M.. IONA COMMUNITY CENTER
PRESENT: Mayor Brad Andersen, Council President Jane Shaw, Council member Bruce Case,
Council member Dennis McArthur, Council member Dan Gubler, Treasurer Ron Nelson, Public
Works Supervisor Prouse, City Clerk Robyn Keyes.
ABSENT: Police Chief Shannon Basaraba
VISITORS: Mike Taylor, Adrian Beazer, Lynden Kunde, Blair Simmons, ZoAnn Simmons,
Kathy McNamara, Dixie Hunting, Linda McArthur, Scott Long, Susie Ransom, Ted Ransom,
Betty McKinlay, Terry McNamara, Ron Roberts, Steve Elliott, Craig Rockwood, Dave
Huntsman, Sally Price.
Mayor Andersen welcomed everyone and Council member McArthur led with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Public Hearing McArthur 6:00 p.m. A public hearing was held for Dennis and Linda
McArthur to consider granting the McArthur's a conditional use permit to allow them to rent
their basement to people other than family members. After reviewing the request and considering
public input, the McArthur's were denied their request for a conditional use permit. See appendix
A for hearing minutes.
Public Hearing School District #93 7:45 p.m. A public hearing was held for School district #93
to consider the renewal of a conditional use permit for a modular classroom on the east side of
the school building. After reviewing the request and considering public input, the district was
granted renewal of their conditional use permit. See appendix B for hearing minutes.
Public Hearing Dog Ordinance Change 7:53 p.m. A public hearing was held to consider Chief
Basaraba's recommended changes to the existing dog ordinance. After reviewing the
recommendations and considering public input, the dog ordinance changes were approved. See
appendix C for hearing minutes.
Historical Society Report. Lynden Kunde said that after talking with the County and the Fire
Marshall regarding access to the back of the museum property, it has been determined that
building a senior center on the back of the property would not be feasible. The Historical Society
has decided to move forward with the museum and would continue to look for an alternative
location for a senior center.
ZoAnne Simmons asked if the Council could provide more funding for the museum project, and
asked the Council if they could guarantee future funding much the same as the City did for the
Stanger building. Mayor Andersen said he would speak with the City attorney regarding the
amount of money allowed annually for such projects.
1
Blair Simmons said that with the City showing support for the project the likelihood of being
awarded a grant was greatly increased.
Mayor Andersen said the City Council was in support of the project and thanked the Historical
Society for their time and efforts.
The Council and audience took a recess from 8:20 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Previous Business. Dixie Hunting said the second Veterans Monument would not be ready for
Memorial Day and asked the Council if the dedication could take place during Iona Days. Mayor
Andersen said Iona Days would be fine and suggested Dixie look into the cost of a bench to go
along with the monuments.
Fair Housing Act Proclamation. Mayor Andersen said The Development Company had
recommended the City adopt April as Fair Housing month. The Mayor read the Fair Housing
Proclamation and the Council agreed to its adoption.
Chicken Ordinance. The Chicken Ordinance was read for approval. Council member McArthur
made a motion to approve changing the chicken ordinance to allow chickens on land with 1/3
acre or greater. He also moved to dispense with the ruling that the ordinance be read in its
entirety and on three separate occasions.
Council member Shaw seconded the motion.
Roll call as follows;
AYE: Council President Shaw
Council member McArthur
Council member Case
NAY: Council president Gubler
Motion carried, Chicken Ordinance approved.
Seasonal Water Use. Mayor Andersen said after discussing with the Water Committee the
subject of charging for seasonal water use, it had been decided that it would be too difficult to
police the usage, and the City would not charge a seasonal water fee.
The Mayor suggested educating the public on responsible water use and consumption.
Council member Case asked if there were any meters installed in Iona. The Mayor and
Supervisor Prouse said there were several meters installed at various places for data gathering
purposes, all new houses had meter pits installed, and as repairs were conducted on old systems,
meter pits were installed with the repairs.
Trash Collection Discussion. The Council reviewed the Request for Proposal (RFP). Council
member Gubler stated his concern with section 5.1 that stated the method of rate increase shall
be based upon The Consumer Price Index -All Urban Consumer U.S. City Average for Water and
2
Sewer and Trash Collection Services. Council member Gubler was concerned the verbiage may
give the company a means for increasing its rate.
Council President Shaw suggested that on the other hand, the verbiage put a cap on what was
allowed for rate increases. The Council agreed to add to the verbiage that any rate increase must
be approved by the Council, and ask the City attorney to review the issue.
Council President Shaw suggested talking with the companies regarding the possibility of
requiring everyone to place their trash bin on the same side of the street, possibly opposite the
mailboxes. Council member Case said that request may be too difficult for some people to move
their trash bin that far. The Council agreed to discuss the issue with the contracted company.
Council member McArthur suggested that the section that stated the company would additionally
provide at no charge to the city, service for collection and hauling of solid waste generated by
City Departments using Contractor -owned containers if commercial service was available.
Council member McArthur said that not all companies offered commercial service and it would
be an unfair advantage for the companies that did offer commercial service. The Council agreed
to remove that section.
The RFP was approved.
Mural Approval. The Council discussed the mural project for the Council Chambers and the
possibility of building a frame and acoustic panels around the mural. The Council approved the
mural project and agreed to pay a deposit for the mural this year and add the remainder of the
cost to next year's budget.
Consent Agenda. The consent agenda was reviewed. Mayor Andersen asked Supervisor Prouse
if he had discussed the VFD recommendations with Paul Scoresby. Supervisor Prouse said he
had not had the opportunity yet, but would soon.
The Mayor asked if the Supervisor had discussed the street striping with the County. Supervisor
Prouse said he had, and the County did not recommend painting stripes on the sides of the street
for liability reasons. The additional cost for painting a center stripe was $150, so Supervisor
Prouse scheduled the job.
Mayor Andersen said he had spoken with the City Attorney regarding business licenses for
people that offered piano lessons, or hair cutting in their homes. The Attorney recommended if
the business did not increase the traffic in the area, and did not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood then a business license would not be necessary. The Attorney did recommend the
city inquire the nature of the business to determine the legality of what was going on in the
home.
The Mayor read a letter he drafted to send to homeowners that had a business in their home but
did not need a business license, the Mayor also said beginning January 1st, those business owners
that had very limited traffic and business that been paying for a business license would no longer
be required to purchase a business license.
3
Mayor Andersen asked if Council member Gubler and Chief Basaraba had coordinated the
purchase of water for civil defense storage. Council member Gubler said he had not because the
Chief had been out of town, but he would discuss the matter with Chief Basaraba.
The Mayor asked the Council if they would be willing to discuss the possibility of setting up a
retirement program for the City employees that would allow the employees to contribute to the
retirement, and the City would match a certain amount of that contribution. The Council agreed
to discuss the issue another time in an executive session.
Mayor Andersen noted that on the expense report Supervisor Prouse's name needed to be
removed for travel expenditures and Chief Basaraba's added.
Mayor Andersen entertained a motion from the Council.
Council member McArthur made a motion to accept the consent agenda with the corrections
noted.
Council member Case seconded the motion.
All were in favor. Motion carried.
Reports.
Supervisor Prouse said DEQ had approved the final plans for well #3 with the following
stipulation; since the City did not have a 50 foot separation between the well and the ditch, DEQ
would allow the City not to go through the variance process if the City agreed to install a
chlorination system, which would cost the City approximately $2,000 - $3,000, and run
additional water quality testing. DEQ would not require the City to chlorinate its water, but
rather have the ability to go online with chlorinated water if necessary.
Mayor Andersen said that was a good idea anyway.
Supervisor Prouse said a pre -bid meeting would be held at the well site on April 29, 2010 at
11:00 a.m.
Mayor Andersen asked if a Council member could be present in the even he could not make the
meeting. Council member Gubler said he would be present for the meeting.
The Supervisor said seal coating prices were similar to last year at $31,000 to $32,000 per mile
so he scheduled one mile for this year.
Mayor Andersen asked if Supervisor Prouse had received a bid to asphalt Walker Ave. between
Main Street and Olsen Street. The Supervisor said the bid came in at $9,000 plus the cost of
replacing the water line under the road. The Council agreed the amount was high, and should be
placed on the budget for 2010-2011.
4
ri%
Council member Gubler said the fence at the daycare on Walker Ave. was out of compliance
with City Code because it was 6-feet high on the front setback which impaired the vision of cars
backing out into the road. The Council agreed the Code Officer should speak with the owner of
the daycare regarding the issue.
Mayor Andersen reiterated the importance of the Council regulating the rules and the Mayor and
the Code Officer enforcing the rules.
Supervisor Prouse reported that the re -striping of the parking lot would be white, and he would
be repairing the intersection of Rockwood and Olsen. The Supervisor also said he had repaired
the pot -holes on 50th as much as the railroad company would let him. The railroad said they
would not let him repair anything close to the track for safety reasons.
Clerk Keyes said the Easter Egg Hunt was successful despite the bad weather. The Clerk also
said that Susan Barnes had contacted her regarding the annual donation to the public
transportation program, and that Mrs. Barnes was hoping for an increased donation to the
program. Mayor Andersen said the budget had been set for this year, but the Council would take
the request into consideration for the next fiscal year. Mayor Andersen said to ask Treasurer
Nelson to issue a check to the program for this fiscal year.
Council President Shaw, no further report.
Council member Gubler, no further report.
Council member Case asked about catering for the Friday night dinner during Iona Days. The
Mayor and Council member gave him suggestions for possible caterers.
Councilmember McArthur asked about vendors and booths for Iona Days. The Mayor said
Saturday until 2:00 p.m. was open for anyone that wanted to set up a booth.
Council President Shaw made a motion to adjourn.
Council member McArthur seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
Adjourned 10:00 p.m.
5
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC HEARING DENNIS AND LINDA MCARHTUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
RENT PART OF THEIR HOME 6:00 P.M. APRIL 27, 2010
COMMUNITY CENTER
PRESENT: Mayor Brad Andersen, Council President Jane Shaw, Council member Bruce Case,
Council member Dennis McArthur, Council member Dan Gubler, Clerk Robyn Keyes.
VISITORS: Mike Taylor, Adrian Beazer, Kathy McNamara, Linda McArthur, Scott Long,
Susie Ransom, Ted Ransom, Betty McKinlay, Terry McNamara, Ron Roberts, Steve Elliott,
Craig Rockwood, Dave Huntsman, Sally Price.
Mayor Andersen welcomed everyone and went over the procedure for a public hearing.
Council member McArthur recused himself and sat with the audience.
Mayor Andersen explained that the McArthur's were requesting a conditional use permit to
allow them to allow people other than family to live in their home in exchange for helping pay
for the living expenses of the home. The mayor turned the time over to Mr. McArthur.
Mr. McArthur thanked everyone for attending and stated that the cause for the meeting began 10
years ago when the Mayor and City Council made an arbitrary and capricious ruling on the
application to change the zoning. Mr. McArthur said the ruling was based on a decision
announced at the meeting to not allow R2 zoning north of Iona Rd. Mr. McArthur said no mayor
or council have the legal right to change the City Code or Master Plan without a hearing process.
Mr. McArthur said the need for the current meeting was reinforced by a second capricious and
arbitrary ruling by the City Council regarding his request for a conditional use permit. Mr.
McArthur said no discussion of the rules that allow and govern such a permit were considered by
the City Council, which voted 2 to 1 to oppose the permit disregarding the recommendation by
the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant the permit. Mr. McArthur said one of the votes
against the permit was cast by a Council member that violated the neutrality requirements when
he attended the Planning and Zoning hearing after he was advised not to. Mr. McArthur said that
according to the City Attorney, that Council member should have abstained from voting.
Mr. McArthur said he believed the more recent Planning and Zoning Commission made a flawed
decision due to misunderstanding the requirements and purpose of the conditional use permit
process. Mr. McArthur said the Planning and Zoning made their decisions based on hardship and
the fear of precedence being set. Mr. McArthur said hardship was not a consideration in the
conditional use permit process, and the code for conditional use permits stated that no permit can
set precedence, and each application had to be judged individually.
Mr. McArthur said his request was not about what he was currently doing, but about allowing
him to do something that was clearly stated as allowable in the code.
6
Mr. McArthur noted that a change of direction took place at the end of the Planning and Zoning
hearing. Participants were instructed to write any conditions that were important for the Planning
and Zoning Commission to consider regarding the permit. Mr. McArthur said no one issued a
statement with conditions except him and his wife. Mr. McArthur added he had presented written
statements from his neighbors that were in favor of his conditional use permit to the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Mr. McArthur said one of the requirements of a conditional use permit was the request needed to
be harmonious with the objective of the zoning and would preserve residential neighborhoods,
prevent overcrowding, and encourage the development of low density areas. Mr. McArthur said
by renting his home there would be a total of four people in the home, which would not change
the culture of the neighborhood by adding to overcrowding. Mr. McArthur said a second
requirement would be to not change the appearance of the neighborhood; the appearance of his
house would not change. A third requirement would be the use of the property would not be
hazardous or disturbing to present or future neighbors; all of his neighbors were in approval of
his rental with conditions such as: renting to only one party at a time, building and property
would be maintained as per City Code, the permit expired when the McArthur's moved or sold
the property, the permit may be reevaluated and revoked if the use became detrimental to the
neighbors, the permit would not require excessive additional expenses or requirements for
services, off street parking would be provided, and the permit would not result in any loss of
natural, scenic, or historical feature. Mr. McArthur said the permit would result in additional
revenue for the City by adding a water fee.
Mr. McArthur recited City Code Chapter 6, Section 11-8-5, C that stated that a conditional use
permit shall not be considered as establishing a binding precedent to grant other conditional use
permits. Mr. McArthur said all applications should be judged on their own merit, and codes were
made flexible to meet the needs and interests of the community and individuals in the
community. Mr. McArthur said he believed both permits granted in the past for rental purposes
did not follow the permit requirements in terms of frontage, off street parking, or lot size, but
they were permitted anyway. Mr. McArthur said if hardship were to be taken into account, then
anytime someone was out of work, or had insufficient funds, they could apply for a variance.
Mr. McArthur said it was wrong to micromanage people because of sentiment, and permits
should be allowed because wise people recognized the reality of need for change. Mr. McArthur
also said that he realized some people were upset because they viewed him as a flagrant violator
of the law. Mr. McArthur said he had been open and non apologetic, and believed his actions
were justified. Mr. McArthur said his application either does, or does not meet the conditions
required for a conditional use permit, regardless of feelings. Mr. McArthur stated that he was
concerned there was one City Council member who could not be neutral in the hearing because
he believed that person had been communicating information with Mr. McNamara. Mr.
McArthur asked that Council member (Council member Gubler) to recuse himself from voting.
Council member Gubler's reply was "that would be a negative".
rifts
7
Mr. McArthur said he would like to ask a few questions and went on to ask Council members
Shaw, Case, the Mayor, and Clerk Keyes if they had disclosed any information from an
executive session to Mr. McNamara. Each person said they had not.
Council member Gubler asked Mr. McArthur if he was going to ask him the question.
Mr. McArthur asked Council member Gubler the same question.
Council member Gubler said he had not disclosed information from the executive session.
Mr. McArthur said he questioned how Mr. McNamara knew that Mr. McArthur had spoken with
the City Attorney.
Council member Gubler suggested that Mr. McArthur ask Mr. McNamara how he knew that
information. Council member Gubler said that during the Planning and Zoning hearing Mr.
McArthur publicly denied going to the City Attorney. Council member Gubler said that
obviously Mr. McArthur had talked with the City Attorney.
Linda McArthur said they in fact did not go to the City Attorney, and instead the City Attorney
contacted them.
Council member Gubler said there was not a conflict of interest on his part, that the conflict was
when Mr. McArthur went to the City Attorney to discuss personal matters.
Mr. McArthur said he did not go to the City Attorney, the City Attorney contacted him.
Mayor Andersen reiterated the question from Mr. McArthur that asked if Council member
Gubler supplied information from an executive meeting to the McNamara's.
Council member Gubler said he did not.
Mr. McArthur asked Council member Gubler if he had talked with the McNamara's about any of
the issues regarding the public hearing.
Council member Gubler said that he absolutely had. Council member Gubler said everyone had
been talking about the issue and asked Mr. McArthur if he had been talking with people
regarding the issue.
Mr. McArthur said he had not since the hearing proceedings started.
Council member Gubler asked each Council member if he had talked with them regarding the
hearing, they all said they had not.
Mr. McArthur said Council member Gubler had been talking with the community about the
issues.
8
Council member Gubler said he had a right to talk to the community all he wanted.
Mayor Andersen restated Mr. McArthur's question and said that the point Mr. McArthur was
trying to make was why people outside the adjacent properties were interested in the issue and
how did they get the information when the adjacent property owners were in favor of the permit.
Council member Gubler said Mr. McArthur was not asking a question, but rather making an
accusation.
Mr. McArthur said he was making an accusation because Council member Gubler was actively
involved with the people that were not in favor of the permit. Mr. McArthur said Council
member Gubler needed to maintain a neutral position in the issue.
Council member Gubler said that he had a responsibility to go out into the community and find
out what was taking place and what the facts were. The Council member said every other
Council member had the same responsibility to find out what the community wanted.
Mr. McArthur said this issue was not the same thing; the issue was whether Council member
Gubler could stay neutral enough to listen to the objectivity and consider the conditional use
permit for what it was.
Council member Gubler said he was there to do that.
Mr. McArthur said this conditional use permit was not about what had happened in the past, but
where they were right now.
Mayor Andersen said he wanted to make sure everyone had an open mind and did not come to
the hearing with prejudged ideas. The Mayor reminded the Council they were there to listen to
the facts and follow the Code Book.
Mr. McArthur said all of his adjacent neighbors supported him with his request.
Mayor Andersen asked if anyone that was in favor of the request would like to speak.
Linda McArthur said she thought the hearing was getting off course, and the real question should
be if they (the McArthur's) met the requirements as stated in the Code Book for a conditional use
Permit. She said that was the purpose of the hearing, not who talked to whom, and what was
said, the bottom line was they either met the requirements or they did not. If the requirements are
met, then a conditional use permit should be granted, if they did not meet the requirements then
they would not rent their basement.
Mayor Andersen asked if anyone that was neutral would like to speak.
Scott Long asked if the property had been a rental before this date.
9
Mayor Andersen explained the history of the property with the McArthur's. The Mayor said in
2000 the McArthur's applied for a zone change for R1 to R2 and were denied the change. Then
shortly after Mayor Andersen took office, the City Clerk at the time told the Mayor that Mr.
McArthur had people living in his house. The Mayor said he asked Mr. McArthur if he had
people living there, Mr. McArthur said he had and they were family. The Mayor said family
could stay. Then awhile later the former Clerk told the Mayor that she heard that the McArthur's
had people other than family living in their house. The Mayor then asked Mr. McArthur if that
was true, he said yes, he had been helping some people out. Some of those people did not pay to
live with him and other people would help pay for the living expenses of the home. Mayor
Andersen said he spoke with the City Attorney and the Attorney explained to the Mayor that
under the Fair Housing Act the McArthur's could have people living in their home as long as
there was not a written contract such as a rental agreement, and the McArthur's were not
charging rent. So the McArthur's continued to let people stay in their home. The Mayor said the
issue came up again by someone in the community, so he spoke with the Attorney again. The
Attorney said even though what the McArthur's were doing fell under the Fair Housing Act, the
actions cast a shadow upon the Council and the Mayor. Mayor Andersen said even though what
the McArthur's were doing was allowed under the Fair Housing Act, he did not want people to
think that the Council was granting anyone favors, so the Mayor asked Mr. McArthur to apply
for a conditional use permit, which he did in 2008. The Mayor said that the conditional use
permit was approved by the Planning and Zoning commission, but not approved by the Council.
Mayor Andersen said the McArthur's continued to have people in their home intermittently and
the issue came up again through an anonymous letter written to the City.
Mr. Long asked if Mr. McArthur was in violation of an ordinance when he continued to allow
people in his home after he was denied the conditional use permit in 2008.
Mayor Andersen said that according to the Fair Housing Act, Mr. McArthur is not in violation of
an ordinance, but the Mayor agreed that the issue was splitting hairs.
Mr. Long said that essentially the City was allowing people to rent their property if there is no
rental agreement involved.
Mayor Andersen said based on the information given to him by the Attorney, and the laws
regarding the Fair Housing Act, people were allowed to have other people in their homes.
Mr. Long said he believed the information was incorrect, and asked if Mr. McArthur was not in
violation of an ordinance, why was he having a hearing?
Mayor Andersen said because the issue kept coming up from various sources, the Council agreed
that the issue either needed to be made officially legal, or Mr. McArthur needed to stop renting
his home.
Council member Shaw said she had done some research and found the Supreme Court refused to
define "family" so according to the Fair Housing Act, as long as there was not a rental agreement
anyone could be considered family. Council member Shaw said technically Mr. McArthur did
not need to have a hearing, but because Iona was such a small community, he chose to have a
10
hearing to have the proper documentation and show to the public that he was not trying to hide
anything. Council member Shaw said if the Supreme Court would not define family under the
Fair Housing Act, the City did not have legal ground to stand on, however by granting the
McArthur's a conditional use permit, the City could then supervise the situation and enforce the
requirements of the permit.
Mr. McArthur explained that when he built the house, he did not build it with the intent of a
duplex. He did build it so he could share the home with his adult children when necessary. Mr.
McArthur said he has had two of his sons and their family's living there, the house had shared
community space within it. An outside stairwell was added as a safety feature for exiting the
basement. When McArthur's sons had moved out, a neighbor asked him if he could provide a
living space for two women that needed transitional housing, so he did. Mr. McArthur said
regarding the young couple that was in the home now, sometimes they help with expenses and
sometimes they don't, he was helping them get on their feet financially so they could move into
their own place. Mr. McArthur said his main objective was to help people by offering a place to
stay until they could move onto their own place. Mr. McArthur said there had never been a time
that he had collected enough money from anyone staying to pay for what would otherwise be
considered rent. Mr. McArthur said he was not sharing his home with people for the money.
Sally Price said she believed people should be allowed to do what ever they wanted with their
property, and if the City could not define family, then Mr. McArthur did not need a conditional
use permit. Mrs. Price said the problem appeared to be that some members of the community
view the McArthur's as breaking the rules while in their minds they are being harassed. Mrs.
Price said maybe the entire community needed to know that they could have people in their
homes that it wasn't against the law.
Adrian Beazer said according to the Comprehensive Plan, the City did not want high density
housing, and that should be taken into consideration.
Mayor Andersen thanked everyone for their comments and turned the time over to anyone that
was against the request.
Kathy McNamara said regarding the accusations that inside information from an executive
hearing had been revealed; the Mayor had publicly stated during a meeting that the City would
get with the Attorney to discuss the matter.
Mrs. McNamara also said that after the last public hearing she had people that had signed letters
of approval call her at home and tell her they did not know Mr. McArthur was doing something
he was not supposed to and they were cornered into supporting him.
Mrs. McArthur asked who the people were because they (the McArthur's) did not intend to
mislead anyone, and were not coercing anyone.
Mrs. McNamara said the McArthur's did not need to know who the callers were.
Terry McNamara said he understood that the previous administration, and the decisions they
made at the previous hearings wanted Iona to remain a bedroom community to Idaho Falls and
11
not a high density area. Mr. McNamara suggested the Council look at the areas in Idaho Falls
that were originally single family dwellings and have been turned into multifamily units. He said
there were too many people, too many vehicles, and too much crime in those areas. Mr.
McNamara said that Iona would turn into the same kind of area if multiple family dwellings were
allowed. Mr. McNamara also said that Mayor Andersen sat in the Council that unanimously
agreed to not allow Mr. McArthur to rent his house. Mr. McNamara suggested the City check
with a few more attorneys regarding the matter because there would be different opinions. Mr.
McNamara said it looked like the Mayor and Council are giving Mr. McArthur perks for sitting
on the Council. Mr. McNamara suggested the City did what is best for the entire community and
not what is best just for the McArthur's.
Craig Rockwood said he talked with the City Attorney regarding the subject and he got a
different story. Mr. Rockwood said he thought the Council was taking certain words the Attorney
said and using them out of context. Mr. Rockwood said the City had put in place zoning laws to
protect the citizens of the community. Mr. Rockwood also said that he heard tonight that the
issue was talked about during executive session, and if that was true a conditional use permit
cannot be talked about in an executive session. Mr. Rockwood said that the City Council had
every right to make an arbitrary decision regarding a conditional use permit; they do not for
zoning issues. Mr. Rockwood said he did not believe it was true that all of Mr. McArthur's
neighbors were in support of him, and if Iona was truly a community then he was one of Mr.
McArthur's neighbors and he was not in favor of the permit because it went against the
established ordinances and zoning laws. Mr. Rockwood said Mr. McArthur ignored the decisions
of the previous Council. Mr. Rockwood said he did not see Mr. McArthur declare his conflict of
interest before the hearing.
Dave Huntsman said he was opposed to the request and said the City was trying to make a
decision based on statements from a lawyer and they do not have those statements in writing.
Mayor Andersen said the City did have the Attorney's statements in writing.
Mr. Huntsman said the City had a much greater problem if the City had not put in writing the
Attorneys recommendations. Mr. Huntsman suggested the City get a written statement from the
Attorney detailing that the zoning ordinance he (the Attorney) helped write and implement he
now can't support. Mr. Huntsman said if the City was going to allow people to rent their homes
under the Fair Housing Act, then there was a very serious problem, and they would not be able to
stop anyone from renting their home. Mr. Huntsman said the conditional use permit should not
be used for considerations in R1 zones. Mr. Huntsman suggested Mr. McArthur vacate his
tenants immediately. Mr. Huntsman went on to say that he was not comfortable having someone
represent him on the Council that could not follow the rules.
Steve Elliott said he also opposed the permit mainly because Mr. McArthur had been denied
twice and continued to collect funds from families or other people.
Scott Long said if the City took this approach and went down a slippery slope allowing people to
get around ordinances and define anyone as family, or not have a rental agreement, then he (Mr.
12
Long) could rent out the upstairs of his 100 year -old house that did not have egress windows,
which would not be a safe situation.
Mayor Andersen thanked everyone and turned the time over to Mr. McArthur for rebuttal.
Mr. McArthur said he did not wish for people to think he was cheating, or feel bad for what he
was doing. Mr. McArthur said he had stayed within the boundaries of the law. Mr. McArthur
said everyone had kept talking about the zoning and ordinances not allowing him to open his
home to other people. Mr. McArthur said the conditional use permit did allow such use,
specifically. Mr. McArthur said he was not asking to turn his home into an R2 dwelling, but
rather he wanted the right to let people stay in his house whenever he wanted them to. Mr.
McArthur said that every conditional use permit had to stand on its own; which meant that
people would have to comply with issues such as, fire ordinances and off street parking. Mr.
McArthur said it was not his intent to make people miserable and unhappy, he said he thought he
had helped many people and made a big difference in their lives. Mr. McArthur said what he was
doing did not hurt the City in anyway. Mr. McArthur said this issue had become personal, and he
believed he had been slandered. He said statements were provided in an anonymous letter that
were not true and factual things had been misrepresented. Mr. McArthur said that Mr.McNamara
stood in the meeting tonight and said he not only knew he had talked with a lawyer, but he knew
what the lawyer had told the Council. Mr. McArthur said that information did not come out of
nowhere.
Council member Gubler said that Mr. McNamara also worked for the City of Idaho Falls.
Mr. McArthur asked Mr. McNamara if he had talked with the City Attorney.
Mr. McNamara said not lately.
Mr. McArthur said he was not sure what the issue was really about, and he said he certainly did
not want any of his neighbors feeling like they were forced into anything. Mr. McArthur said
sometimes things in the past were not done properly, and he was not asking anyone to do
anything that was not allowed in the Code Book.
Mayor Andersen closed the public portion of the hearing and opened discussion up for the
Council. The Mayor reminded the Council to treat each other the way they would want to be
treated, and to work together toward a solution.
Mayor Andersen said he would like to address a few issues before the Council had their
discussion. The Mayor said the hearing in 2000 was for a spot annexation to change from R1 to
R2 zone, and it was voted against for spot annexation. This situation was different.
The Mayor said regarding seeking advice from another attorney, the only attorney he was going
to talk to was the City Attorney. The Mayor also said he did have in writing the Attorney's
discussions regarding the Fair Housing Act, the Mayor said he saved all of the email
correspondence. Under the Fair Housing Act, people could live together in the same house there
was nothing anybody could do about it.
13
Mayor Andersen said Mr. McArthur did not need a public hearing to do what he was doing; the
reason for the public hearing was to show to the public that the McArthur's were not receiving
special treatment.
Mayor Andersen clarified the conditional use permit request was not talked about during the
executive session.
Mr. Rockwood asked the Mayor if Mr. McArthur would be allowed to be a part of the Council
discussion and pointed out a conflict of interest.
Mayor Andersen said Mr. McArthur would not be a part of the Council discussion.
Council President Shaw said anyone that wanted to be a part of the hearing had a right to
regardless if they were a direct neighbor or not. The President went on to say that she was
elected to represent every member of the community, which meant she was interested in their
comments and input, and the day she was not allowed to listen to what her neighbors might have
to say about an issue was the day she would step down from the Council. She said she had every
right to discuss issues outside of the Council chambers with the public.
Council President Shaw said she wanted to address the reference of multifamily dwellings
compared to areas in Idaho Falls. President Shaw agreed that the areas in reference were a mess;
however most of those dwellings did not have the owner also living on the premises. That was
not the case with the McArthur's they were on the premises, so the situation was different.
President Shaw said if the Council was going to govern with integrity then they needed to go by
the Codes that were in place for the City, and in Title 1 Chapter 4 item 3 specifically defined in
R1 zone conditional uses allowed. The Code said the City may, after notice and public hearing
permit the following uses, were such uses are essential and desirable to the public convenience
and welfare, and the first item (A) stated duplexes. President Shaw said allowing the
McArthur's to rent their space to a young couple was a public convenience. President Shaw said
if the City didn't like that provision, then it needed to change the Code, and many city's had
done just that, but by doing so it would eliminate many in home occupations such as daycares.
Council President Shaw said if Mr. McArthur met all of the conditions for a conditional use
permit, the City needed to allow the permit, and the Council would be remiss to deny the permit
unless they took the condition completely out of the Code Book. President Shaw suggested
family should be defined in the ordinance, but as it stands what the McArthur's were asking was
allowed.
Council member Gubler said the Code Book stated that the City may issue a conditional use
permit if the use was desire bale. Council member Gubler said he wanted to talk about the
Federal Housing Act and its intended purpose to stop people from being discriminated against. If
Mr. McArthur can prove that the City was discriminating against him then the law would apply.
Council member Gubler said what the law did allow was to increase the law to meet the needs of
the City, and if the City wanted to make the law more stringent, they were able to do so. The
Code was law in the City of Iona and unless discrimination was involved, the City Code
superseded the Federal Housing Act law. Council member Gubler said the people of Iona liked
14
the bedroom community lifestyle, and by allowing multifamily dwellings that was the door that
opened to high density housing.
Council member Gubler said the biggest reason he was against the McArthur's permit was
because of the appearance it presented upon the Council and the fact that Mr. McArthur
continued to rent his home when he was told not to. Council member Gubler said he talked with
two different attorneys and asked them what rent was, and they both said rent was exchanging
anything of value for the purpose of housing. Council member Gubler said the R1 zone was
important and there had only been two times a conditional use permit was granted for
multifamily dwelling, and both of those times were due to financial hardship and were for the
current owner of the home only. Brenda Denning was granted a conditional use permit, then sold
her house and the new owner began renting the bottom portion of the home, the new owner, Mr.
Larsen, asked the Council for a conditional use permit and was denied for the same reason Mr.
McArthur was. Council member Gubler claimed that the current homeowner said he was doing
the same thing the McArthur's were doing. Council member Gubler said a conditional use permit
did not create precedence, but it did create a perception and the new homeowner was doing what
he was doing because of perception. Council member Gubler said the Codes were established to
have a semblance of order, and a conditional use permit can be issued if the Council approved of
the conditions. Council member Gubler said he had a problem with Mr. McArthur continuing to
rent his home, and the Council should be held to a higher order. Council member Gubler said he
agreed with Council President Shaw's ascertain that they had a right to go out into the public to
discuss matters of the City with the public.
Council member Case said he understood what had been said that the City's law's contradicted
other laws.
Council member Gubler said the City's laws did not contradict the Federal Housing Act.
Council member Case said that the City needed to be fair across the board, and he was voted in
to represent the people. Council member Case said he appreciated everyone's comments, and as
he understood the Code, the McArthur's had a right to ask for a conditional use permit. Council
member Case said he noted the public's comments and he agreed with the concerns regarding
high density housing, and it was obvious that everyone was not in favor of the request. The Code
needed to be followed and conditional use permits could be granted when the conditionals were
in the best interest of the public, but in this case not everyone agreed with the permit.
Council member Case said he thought it was wrong that the McArthur's have continued to
proceed in the manner in which they have, and any exchange of money was considered rent.
Mayor Andersen said the City did not have a definition of family in the Code Book. The Mayor
said from what he understood from Mr. Larsen's father was Mr. Larsen was only renting to
family in his house.
The Mayor said he agreed with Mr. McArthur's concern of the possibility of Council member
Gubler supplying information to the McNamara's. Council member Gubler said he did not
provide information to the McNamara's.
15
Mayor Andersen also said he should not have read the unsigned letter that was sent to the
Council last December. He said he started to read the letter before he realized it was unsigned,
and in another hearing an unsigned letter was not permitted.
The Mayor agreed that it was the Council's duty to be a protector of people rights, and
homeowners should have the right to do what they want to do as long as it was within the
boundaries of the Code Book and it did affect the neighbors. The Mayor said there were many
people in the community that did things without asking, and it seemed the people that did come
in to do the right thing ended up getting punished for it.
Mayor Andersen said each month he attends a mayors meeting and he had talked with Ucon,
Ammon, and Idaho Falls Mayors regarding the subject of people renting their homes, and each
city said they did not worry about small issues like those. The Mayor said he wondered if Iona
had too much government sometimes because it was such a small community. Mayor Andersen
said he agreed that a conditional use permit would help regulate certain situations such as
multifamily dwellings, and allow the City to evaluate them individually.
The Mayor reminded the Council to look at what the Code Book allowed, review the facts and
keep an open mind.
Council member Case addressed the anonymous letter and said he thought anonymity needed to
be allowed because sometimes hostile situations arose between neighbors, and people need to
feel they could have a say without repercussions.
Mayor Andersen agreed, but said it was important to know if the person was against the issue, or
if the person just didn't like their neighbor.
Council President Shaw said the Council was limited by enforceability with the nature of the
issue, and if the Council wanted the conditional use permit process different, they would have to
change the code.
Mayor Andersen entertained a motion from the Council.
Council member Gubler made a motion to deny the McArthur's request for a conditional use
permit.
Council member Case seconded the motion.
The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion.
Council member Gubler said he wanted to clarify his reason for the motion, which was to
preserve the R1 community in Iona.
16
Council member Case said he seconded for the same reason, that the citizens were concerned
with high density housing, doubled with the fact that not everyone was onboard with the
McArthur's request.
The Mayor asked for a roll call. Roll call as follows;
NAY: Council President Shaw
AYE: Council member Gubler
Council member Case.
Motion carried 2:1, request denied.
Mayor Andersen thanked everyone for their input.
Hearing closed 7:37 p.m.
17
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC HEARING SCHOOL DISTRICT #93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE USE OF A MODULAR CLASSROOM 7:45 P.M. APRIL 27, 2010
COMMUNITY CENTER
PRESENT: Mayor Brad Andersen, Council President Jane Shaw, Council member Bruce Case,
Council member Dennis McArthur, Council member Dan Gubler, Clerk Robyn Keyes.
VISITORS: Mike Taylor, Adrian Beazer, Scott Long, Ron Roberts, Sally Price.
Mayor Andersen welcomed everyone and went over the procedure for a public hearing.
Clerk Keyes explained that since the conditional use permit had just expired a few months ago,
she suggested to the school district they ask for a renewal. Clerk Keyes said she told the school
district that if nothing had changed since the last hearing, they would not need to be present for
the hearing if they chose not to be.
Public Works Supervisor Prouse said the district was in violation of setback requirements last
time because they moved three units onto the property, which did not have enough room for
three.
Mayor Andersen agreed that last time they were allowed two and they put three on the property.
Scott Long asked why they were moving modular units on when they had just built two new
schools.
Clerk Keyes said the district is growing rapidly and were experiencing over crowding again.
Mayor Andersen entertained a motion from the Council.
Council member Gubler made a motion to approve the conditional use permit renewal with the
following stipulations; the district was allowed only one building, and if they want more they
need to get approval from the Council, they must obtain a building permit and necessary
inspections, the building must meet setback requirements, and the permit must be reviewed
annually.
Council member Case seconded the motion. Roll call as follows:
AYE: Council President Shaw
Council member Gubler
Council member McArthur
Council member Case
NAY: None.
Motion carried. Public hearing closed 7:50 p.m.
18
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING DOG ORDINANCE 7:53 P.M. APRIL 27, 2010
COMMUNITY CENTER
PRESENT: Mayor Brad Andersen, Council President Jane Shaw, Council member Bruce Case,
Council member Dennis McArthur, Council member Dan Gubler, Clerk Robyn Keyes.
VISITORS: Mike Taylor, Adrian Beazer, Scott Long, Ron Roberts, Sally Price.
Mayor Andersen welcomed everyone and went over the procedure for a public hearing.
The Council members read over the proposed changes for the dog ordinance.
Mayor Andersen said the dog licenses would be $5 for 2 years and $15 for a lifetime tag, and a
noncommercial permit could not have more than four dogs.
Scott Long thanked everyone for the good job they were doing.
There were no further questions or discussion.
Council President Shaw made a motion to approve the amendments to the dog ordinance and to
dispense with the ruling that the ordinance be read in its entirety and on three separate occasions.
Council member Gubler seconded the motion. Roll call as follows:
AYE: Council President Shaw
Council member Gubler
Council member Case
Council member McArthur
NAY: None.
Motion carried. Public hearing closed 8:00 p.m.
19
CITY OF IONA
** B U D G E T R E P O R T**
03-31-10
PAGE 3
**** GENERAL FUND **** ESTIMATED * * R E C E I P T E D * * UNRECEIPTED PERCENT
FUND ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT TITLE REVENUE MTD YTD BALANCE RECEIPTED
001 305.000 STATE HIGHWAY USERS 40,000.00 .00 22,761.86 17,238.14
001 310.000 STATE REVENUE SHARING 35,000.00 .00 20,291.69 14,708.31
001 315.000 STATE LIQUOR TAX 25,000.00 .00 17,758.00 7,242.00
001 320.000 BEER & DOG LICENSES 200.00 60.55 162.55 37.45
001 325.000 COURT REVENUE 15,000.00 378.53 6,039.98 8,960.02
001 330.000 INTEREST 1,000.00 .00 178.28 821.72
001 335.000 CABLE TV FRANCHISE 3,800.00 4,925.83 4,925.83 1,125.83-
001 340.000 NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE 10,500.00 .00 3,862.88 6,637.12
001 345.000 POWER FRANCHISE 15,500.00 .00 8,512.90 6,987.10
001 355.000 BUILDING RENT 6,000.00 775.00 4,615.00 1,385.00
001 357.000 BUILDING INSPECTION FEES 12,000.00 4,573.00 19,207.00 7,207.00-
001 358.000 GRANTS 10,000.00 .00 680.00 9,320.00
001 360.000 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 200,000.00 2,846.52 112,663.67 87,336.33
001 390.000 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 7,000.00 240.00 3,090.18 3,909.82
001 395.000 RESERVES 50,000.00 .00 .00 50,000.00
56.90
57.98
71.03
81.28
40.27
17.83
129.63
36.79
54.92
76.92
160.06
6.80
56.33
44.15
**TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 431,000.00
13,799.43 224,749.82
206,250.18 52.15
**** GENERAL FUND ****
FUND ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT TITLE
ESTIMATED
EXPENSE
** E X P E N D E D**
MTD
UNEXPENDED PERCENT
YTD BALANCE EXPENDED
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
410.000 PAYROLL
420.000 RETIREMENT
422.000 HEALTH INSURANCE
424.000 PAYROLL TAXES
440.000 ELECTRICITY - NATURAL GAS
445.000 OFFICE SUPPLIES
446.000 TRAVEL
447.000 ADVERTISING
450.000 INSURANCE LIABILITY
455.000 LEGAL & AUDIT FEES
459.000 POLICE -PAYROLL
460.000 POLICE-COUNTY/DISPATCH
461.000 POLICE -RETIREMENT
462.000 POLICE -HEALTH INSURANCE
463.000 POLICE -TRAINING
464.000 POLICE -GENERAL
465.000 VEHICLE RENT
470.000 MAINTENANCE
472.000 BUILDING INSPECTIONS
475.000 CIVIL DEFENSE
480.000 LIBRARY
490.000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
495.000 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
54,000.00 7,545.00 43,295.00 10,705.00
10,000.00 765.95 4,555.89 5,444.11
20,000.00 3,389.74 17,531.81 2,468.19
10,000.00 867.98 5,395.69 4,604.31
24,000.00 2,196.72 11,581.78 12,418.22
10,000.00 516.92 4,567.51 5,432.49
5,000.00 20.00 729.60 4,270.40
2,400.00 109.50 104.73 2,295.27
8,500.00 1,012.00 5,062.00 3,438.00
11,000.00 600.00 6,700.00 4,300.00
47,300.00 4,364.00 25,745.00 21,555.00
26,500.00 3,903.75 5,075.10 21,424.90
4,600.00 426.41 2,829.04 1,770.96
12,600.00 .00 1,000.31 11,599.69
2,200.00 340.20 340.20 1,859.80
18,800.00 222.98 14,187.44 4,612.56
5,000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00
80,000.00 2,202.96 35,338.45 44,661.55
8,000.00 704.00 3,914.00 4,086.00
500.00 .00 .00 500.00
2,000.00 .00 .00 2,000.00
61,600.00 .00 8,903.78 52,696.22
7,000.00 600.08 4,971.97 2,028.03
80.18
45.56
87.66
53.96
48.26
45.68
14.59
4.36
59.55
60.91
54.43
19.15
61.50
7.94
15.46
75.47
44.17
48.93
14.45
71.03
**TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENSES 431,000.00
29,788.19 201,829.30
229,170.70 46.83
**NET EXCESS OR DEFICIENCY(-) 15,988.76-
22,920.52 22,920.52-
CITY OF IONA
** B U D G E T R E P O R T**
FOR 03-31-10
fiN
PAGE 4
**** WATER FUND **** ESTIMATED * * R E C E I P T E D * * UNRECEIPTED PERCENT
FUND ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT TITLE REVENUE MTD YTD BALANCE RECEIPTED
002 305.000 COLLECTIONS 160,000.00 15,021.70 94,501.69 65,498.31
002 310.000 HOOK UP FEES 30,000.00 9,000.00 42,000.00 12,000.00-
002 315.000 INTEREST 500.00 .00 187.72 312.28
002 350.000 TANK REPLACEMENT FUND 50,000.00 .00 .00 50,000.00
002 358.000 GRANTS 5,000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00
002 395.000 RESERVES 50,000.00 .00 .00 50,000.00
002 397.000 WATER BOND .00 .00 .00
59.06
140.00
37.54
**TOTAL WATER FUND REVENUE 295,500.00
24,021.70 136,689.41
158,810.59 46.26
**** WATER FUND **** ESTIMATED * *EXPENDED* * UNEXPENDED PERCENT
FUND ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT TITLE EXPENSE MTD YTD BALANCE EXPENDED
002 410.000 SALARIES & BENEFITS 60,000.00 .00 .00 60,000.00
002 440.000 ELECTRICITY 25,000.00 1,426.27 12,321.62 12,678.38
002 445.000 OFFICE, SUPPLIES, LEGAL 8,000.00 762.02 4,251.51 3,748.49
002 450.000 ENGINEERING COSTS 10,000.00 .00 .00 10,000.00
002 460.000 VEHICLE EXPENSE .00 .00 .00
ON 465.000 VEHICLE RENT 7,000.00 .00 .00 7,000.00
470.000 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 40,000.00 1,559.46 11,724.18 28,275.82
002 480.000 BOND PAYMENT .00 .00 .00
002 482.000 BOND INTEREST .00 .00 .00
002 485.000 TANK REPLACEMENT FUND 80,000.00 .00 .00 80,000.00
002 490.000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 65,500.00 .00 .00 65,500.00
002 497.000 WATER SYSTEM UPATE .00 .00 .00
49.29
53."14
29.31
**TOTAL WATER FUND EXPENSE 295,500.00
3,747.75 28,297.31
267,202.69 9.58
**NET EXCESS OR DEFICIENCY(-) 20,273.95
108,392.10 108,392.10-
CITY OF IONA
**BUDGET R E P O R T*
FOR 03-31-10
PAGE 5
**** EQUIP REPLACEMENT **** ESTIMATED * * R E C E I P T E D * * UNRECEIPTED PERCENT
FUND ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT TITLE REVENUE MTD YTD BALANCE RECEIPTED
003 305.000 EQUIP RENT --WATER 5,000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00
003 310.000 EQUIP RENT --GENERAL 5,000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00
003 395.000 EQUIP RESERVES --WATER 40,000.00 .00 .00 40,000.00
003 396.000 EQUIP RESERVES --GENERAL 40,000.00 .00 .00 40,000.00
**TOTAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT REVENUE
90,000.00 .00
.00 90,000.00
**** EQUIP REPLACEMENT ****
FUND ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT TITLE
ESTIMATED * *EXPENDED**
EXPENSE
MTD YTD
UNEXPENDED PERCENT
BALANCE EXPENDED
003 410.000 EQUIP REPLACEMENT --WATER 45,000.00 .00 .00
003 415.000 EQUIP REPLACEMENT --GENERAL 45,000.00 .00 .00
003 490.000 EQUIPMENT PURCHASE .00 .00
**TOTAL EQUIP REPLACEMENT EXPENSE
45,000.00
45,000.00
.00
90,000.00 .00
.00 90,000.00
**NET EXCESS OR DEFICIENCY(-) .00 .00 .00
"
C I T Y O F I O N A
* * B U D G E T R E P O R T * *
P A G E 6
F O R 0 3 - 3 1 - 1 0
* * * * R E C R E A T I O N F U N D * * * * E S T I M A T E D * * R E C E I P T E D * * U N R E C E I P T E D P E R C E N T
F U N D A C C O U N T # A C C O U N T T I T L E R E V E N U E M T D Y T D B A L A N C E R E C E I P T E D
0 0 4 3 0 5 . 0 0 0 B A S E B A L L F E E S 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
0 0 4 3 1 0 . 0 0 0 S H E L T E R R E N T A L 3 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 0
0 0 4 3 2 0 . 0 0 0 W E S T E R N B O Y S F E E S 5 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 2 9 0 . 0 0 4 2 . 0 0
0 0 4 3 9 5 . 0 0 0 R E S E R V E S . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0
* * T O T A L R E C R E A T I O N F U N D R E V E N U E 1 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 1 3 , 5 9 0 . 0 0 1 . 5 2
* * * * R E C R E A T I O N F U N D * * * * E S T I M A T E D * * E X P E N D E D * * U N E X P E N D E D P E R C E N T
F U N D A C C O U N T # A C C O U N T T I T L E E X P E N S E M T D Y T D B A L A N C E E X P E N D E D
0 0 4 4 1 0 . 0 0 0 R E C R E A T I O N E Q U I P M E N T 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
0 0 4 4 1 5 . 0 0 0 R E C R E A T I O N L A B O R 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 5 , 8 0 0 . 0 0
0 0 4 4 2 0 . 0 0 0 B A S E B A L L S U P P L I E S 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
0 0 4 4 7 0 . 0 0 0 R E C R E A T I O N M A I N T E N A N C E 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
* * T O T A L R E C R E A T I O N F U N D E X P E N S E
1 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0
* * N E T E X C E S S O R D E F I C I E N C Y ( - ) . 0 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 -
t
MONTHLY EXPENSE REPOT
3/31 /2010
Amount
Date
Description
ROCKY MTN POWER
$ 2,427.05
ELECTRICITY
AIC
$ 20.00
P & Z WORKSHOP
BLUE CROSS
$ 2,119.69
HEALTH INSURANCE
PSI
$ 50.90
GARBAGE
FIRST RESPONDERS
$ 52.00
MEGA PHONE
LARSEN REPAIR
$ 169.62
SNOWPLOW TRUCK
AFLAC
$ 508.56
HEALTH INSURANCE
DELTA DENTAL
$ 272.75
DENTAL INSURANCE
FLEET SERVICES
$ 728.48
FUEL(2 MONTHS)
HOLDEN KIDWELL
$ 600.00
RETAINER
BOB MCBRIDE
$ 704.00
INSPECTIONS
BONN CO SHERIFF
$ 4,081.29
QUARTERLY
ZECH PROUSE
$ 297.74
HEALTH INSURANCE
ZECH PROUSE
$ 50.00
CELL PHONE INSURANCE
JOEL KEYES
$ 1,365.00
LABOR
WINCO
$ 107.07
EASTER
AMERICAN SCREEN
$ 127.50
POLICE -BLANK REPORT FORMS
REGENCE BLUE SHIELD
$ 191.00
HEALTH INSURANCE
FAIR POINT
$ 285.67
PHONE
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS CO
$ 1,195.94
NATURAL GAS
ICRMP
$ 1,012.00
LIABILITY INSURANCE
SAMS CLUB
$ 62.39
EASTER
$ 172.75
EASTER
_WALMART
LA QUINTNA INN
$ 340.20
ZECH-TRAVEL
POST REGISTER
$ 109.50
ADVERTISING
ASPHALT MAINTENANCE
$ 170.00
HOME DEPOT
$ 336.76
SAMS CLUB
$ 207.53
EASTER-HD
WINCO
$ 110.54
EASTER-HD
WONDER BREAD
$ 39.80
EASTER-HD
POSTMASTER
$ 349.36
POSTAGE
TETON MICROBIOLOGY
$ 120.00
WATER TEST
MICRO SERV
$ 105.90
WIRELESS
KIRKHAM AUTO
$ 87.59
TOOLS -PARTS
PEAK ALARM
$ 91.35
ALARM SYSTEM
PRO RENTAL
$ 92.41
HAMMER DRILL -COMPACTOR
CAL STORES
$ 94.31
TOOLS -PARTS
UNITED MAILING
$ 111.14
_WATER
BILLS
6-12 EZ MART
$ 121.35
FUEL
VERIZON
$ 179.62
PHONE
DALE GARNER ELECTRIC
$ 179.62
WHEELER ELECTRIC
$ 437.60
JIMS TROPHY
$ 16.00
BRASS PLATES
CITY OF IONA
BANK REPORT
DATE
03/31/10
BANK OF COMMERCE
GENERAL CHECKING
$ 27,094.00
WATER CHECKING
$ 12,154.00
GENERAL SAVINGS
$ 201,268.00
WATER SAVINGS
$ 255,566.00
KEY BANK
GENERAL SAVINGS
$ 156,682.00
WATER SAVINGS
$ 52,227.00
WELLS FARGO
WATER SAVINGS
$ 51,663.00
MERRILL LYNCH
GENERAL SAVINGS
$ 101,019.00
1
DISCUSSION Points for April City Council Meeting/Hearing for McArthur Conditional Use
Permit:
1. Thank you for taking the time to consider our request for a conditional use permit that
would allow us to have non -family members live in our basement.
2. The cause for this meeting began almost ten years ago when a mayor and city council
made an arbitrary and capricious ruling on our application for a change in zoning. At that
meeting, without considering the City ordinances, an arbitrary ruling was made based on
a decision announced at that meeting to not allow any R2 zoning north of Iona Road. No
mayor or city council has the legal right to change the city code or master plan without a
hearing process. The need for this meeting was reinforced by a second capricious and
arbitrary ruling by Iona's city council regarding our request for a conditional use permit.
No discussion of the rules that allow and govern such a permit were considered by the
City council, which voted 2 to 1 to oppose the permit even after the rules and
requirements had been reviewed by the Iona P & Z commission, which recommended
that the permit be granted after all the neighbors' concerns had been addressed. One of
the negative votes was cast by a council member who violated neutrality requirements
when he attended the P & Z Meeting after being advised not to do so. According to the
City's attorney, this councilmember should have been recused and abstained from voting.
3. We believe the more recent P & Z commission made a flawed decision due to
misunderstanding the requirements and purposes of the conditional use permit process. A
misunderstanding of the difference between conditional use permit requirements and
requirements for a variance seems evident in the comments made by various members of
the P & Z Commission:
a. PZ member Garren said he had spent a lot of time thinking about this hearing and
looking into other permits that had been issued. PZ member Garren agreed the
other permits were issued because of a hardship, and the McArthur's situation
was not a hardship. PZ member Garren said he did believe precedence would be
set because other people would want to do the same thing as the McArthur's. PZ
member Garren said he was against granting the McArthur's a conditional use
permit.
z
Hardship is not a consideration in the conditional use permit process.
Furthermore, code for a conditional use permit clearly states that no permit can set
a precedence, and each application has to be judged individually by the
requirements for the permit.
b. PZ member Hobbs said that under the current ordinance, what the McArthur's
were doing was not allowed, and until the ordinance was changed he was against
granting a conditional use permit to the McArthurs.
This permit application is not about what we are currently doing; it is about
allowing us to do something that is clearly stated as allowable in the code — a
duplex type arrangement.
c. Chairman Beazer agreed that precedence would be set and was against granting
the permit.
The code states that no conditional use permit sets a precedence.
d. PZ member Taylor said that even though there were special economic
circumstances, the McArthur's did not show a hardship, and was against
allowing the McArthur's to have a rental in their home.
Hardship is not considered in the code for a conditional use permit.
One other unexpected event at this P & Z meeting was the change in direction. At the
end of the prior meeting, participants were instructed to write any conditions that were
important for the P & Z Commission to consider regarding this permit. All of my
neighbors had expressed concerns that were included in the application or given verbally
to the P & Z Commission at the first meeting. We submitted a written statement, but no
others were mentioned because there were none submitted. We came expecting to go
over the conditions, but this did not happen nor were any additional conditions asked for
by the P and Z Commission. All of my neighbors approved my application with their
signatures except for Mr. Seneff who told me after the meeting adjourned that he had no
problems with what I was doing but didn't want a multiple rental to occur. These are 12
plus people in favor who are neighbors vs a few who live blocks away.
3
4. Requirements for a conditional use permit:
a. A request for usage not currently allowed in the zoning of the property. A duplex
rental with part of a home rented out is not allowed in an Rl zone, so we meet this
conditional use requirement.
b. Will be harmonious with the general objectives of the zoning district involved:
i. The purpose of an Rl zone is to preserve residential neighborhoods,
prevent overcrowding of the land, and encourage the development of low
density areas which are best suited for residential purposes.
Having a few people share our home by renting the basement does not
change the family culture of our neighborhood in any way as they do
add a young family to the neighborhood with all their energy and
ambition without overcrowding the neighborhood.
ii. The approval of this conditional use permit would not change the
character or appearance of the neighborhood.
The house would keep the same appearance and size.
iii. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to present or future neighboring uses.
All of my neighbors have approved my being able to rent the
basement with conditions that protect their interest in their
neighborhood:
1. At no time can there be two renting parties in this home.
2. The building and property will be maintained at a level required by
City Code.
3. This permit expires when the McArthurs move or sell this
property.
4. This permit can be reevaluated and revoked if this use becomes
detrimental to the neighbors.
5. Will not require excessive additional expense or requirements for
services.
This permit will result in additional revenue for the City as a
double water fee will be paid for any month when it is rented
to non -family.
4
6. Will not create any physical conditions that are detrimental to the
neighborhood or City.
7. Will not create conditions that interfere with traffic. The off street
parking requirements for Rl will be maintained — off street parking
for four vehicles will be provided.
8. Will not result in any loss of natural, scenic, or historical feature.
iv. Will not set a precedent as stated in City Code Chapter 6, Section 11-8-5,
C: "A conditional use permit shall not be considered as establishing a
binding precedent to grant other conditional use permits."
5. Citizens of a community have a right for allowable permits to be granted if all conditions
are met. We leamed this the hard way in a prior Bonneville County P & Z meeting when
some of us went to protest a development being approved at the corner of Iona and
Crowley Roads. The developer wanted to use less than the 1 /3 acre required in our
ordinances, and we wanted them to hold to the 1/3 acre minimum. However, after the
meeting a member of that commission said she was sympathetic to our position but was
compelled to vote for the developer because that was Iona's present code. A change was
made to help maintain lot size in future developments. The Iona Council also has had a
long term practice of denying ownership of more than two dogs, at least in policy. Some
of us, myself included, took the position that we would approve no new kennel licenses
because of existing dog problems. We violated citizens' rights — all applications should
be judged on their own merit. This didn't work, and it took our police chief to use the
code appropriately to provide a way to effectively manage the dog nuisance issues using
the code we had for a kennel licenses.
6. Codes are flexible to meet the needs and interests of the community and individuals in
the community. The conditional use permit process has built in safeguards to protect
neighbors and the City. It is when we make arbitrary and capricious decisions because of
personal sentiment that we weaken our own code and make enforcement hard to
accomplish. For instance, I believe both of the permits granted in the past did not follow
permit requirements for multiple housing in terms of frontage, off street parking, or lot
size, but they were permitted anyway. A hardship is financial when it comes to a
conditional use permit or a variance. If so, anytime someone is out of work or has
5
insufficient funds, they could apply for variance. A hardship in permit issues is usually
when something wanted cannot be achieved because of property restrictions — such as the
house permitted to have chickens in the front yard because there was no back yard. It is
wrong to micromanage people because of sentiment. Permits are allowed because wise
people recognized the reality of needs for change at a family level but built in protections
for the neighbors and the City. We need to make decisions that give people the benefit of
our doubt as long as what they are asking is allowed by code, neighbors are willing, and
requirements and conditions can be met. Permits and variances are revocable if
conditions are not met or maintained.
7. I realise that some are upset because they see me as a flagrant violator of the law. I have
been open and non apologetic and believe my actions are justified. I do feel badly for the
anger and bad feelings two or three households have expressed. However, this application
stands on its own - it either does or does not meet the conditions required for a
conditional use permit — regardless of feelings. This application is not about the past; it is
about the future.
8. I am also concerned that there is one on this City council who cannot be neutral in this
hearing because I believe he has communicated information with Mr. McNamara and
would ask this council member to recuse himself from voting.
PROPOSAL
Painting for City Council Chambers
by Ramona Horton
1. As of March 2010, the price of an original oil painting by
Ramona Horton is 2 x's the square inch of desired painting,
size 4"x5" up to 24"x48". (20" up to 1152" or $40 - $2304)
2. Any size greater then these would be considered by the artist
to be a "mural". The price of a mural is different.
3. Mural price is 1 x's the square inch up to 3' x 6' ($2595) and
.75 x's additional square inches up to 4'x 8' and .5 x's for
sizing beyond 4'x8'.
4. A down payment of $500 would be required. This money
would pay for supplies and time required in preparation.
4 a. Supplies: paint, brushes, gesso (used in preparing wall
surface or Masonite), canvas, stretching bars (if using
canvas).
4 b. Prep work involves stretching canvas onto bars or
coating and sanding 3 times Masonite or wall, and/or
attaching Masonite to stabilizing bars.
4 c. In addition, the city would receive the unframed
"study" sketch with all copyright privileges to do with
as they wish.
5. The balance would be paid upon completion of project. The
price does not include cost of any framing or molding that
might be desired. Price does not include the cost of hanging,
if the mural was done on Masonite or canvas.
Submitted March 16, 2010 by Allen D. Horton, Agent for
Ramona Horton
Signed ,'�-
Cost break down for murals larger than 3'x6'.
Price for 4'x8' : the first 2595 square inches is priced at $1 per.
The next 2013 square inches is priced at $.75 per.
$2595
+1590
$4104
This is the largest size that could be done on Masonite.
Canvas comes in rolls of 5 , 6, or 7 feet widths by 18 feet long.
You could choose any size within these widths and lengths.
Your wall would be another option and you would choose the
size and placement on the wall.
If the city does not want a mural but would like one of the
"study" pieces that you viewed tonight, you could purchase it for
the $1 per square inch. I would like to do more work on them if
they were going to be purchased. One or the other could be
completed within the next 2 weeks. Again, the cost does not
include framing or hanging.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
eeelibt 'crzent6 ovn, acealunt
Received from CITY OF IONA on May 18, 2010
the amount of $1000. Leaving a balance of $3104 due
on Oct. 1, 2010 or upon completion of mural, which ever
is later.
*//te,ek
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETS THE THIRD TUESDAY
OF EACH MONTH AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE
COMMUNITY CENTER LOCATED AT 3548 NORTH
MAIN STREET, IONA.
2010 SCHEDULE AS FOLLOWS:
JANUARY
19TH
FEBRUARY
16TH
MARCH
16TH
APRIL
27TH
MAY
1 8TH
DUNE
15TH
JULY
20TH
AUGUST
17TH
SEPTEMBER
21 sT
OCTOBER
19TH
NOVEMBER
16TH
DECEMBER
Meeting will be held
from 5:30-6:30
21 sT
Any person needing special accommodations
to participate in the above noticed meeting
should contact the City Office at least one day
before the meeting at 523-5600
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City of Iona's Council has scheduled a public hearing on the evening of April 27,
2010 at 7:20 P.M. at the Iona Community Center, which is located at 3548 North Main
Street, Iona, Idaho. The purpose of the hearing is to consider amendments to the dog
ordinance as recommended by the City Code Officer.
If you have any comments concerning this hearing, they will be considered at the public
hearing. Comments may be made in writing, but must be received by the City Clerk no
later than seven (7) days before the public hearing.
Robyn" yes,
City Clerk
Dated this 24th day of March, 2010
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City of Iona's Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing on
the evening of April 14, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. at the Iona Community Center, which is
located at 3548 North Main Street, Iona, Idaho. The purpose of the hearing is to consider
the renewal of a conditional use permit granted to School District #93 to allow modular
classrooms at Iona Elementary. A second public hearing is scheduled for the evening of
April 27, 2010 at 7:10 P.M. at the Community Center with the City Council for final
approval if so recommended by Planning and Zoning.
If you have any comments concerning this request, they will be considered at the public
hearing. Comments may be made in writing, but must be received by the City Clerk
seven ( 7 ) days before the public hearing.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2010
Respectfully yours,
Robyn Keyes,
City Clerk
Publish: Fifteen (15) days prior to hearing date.
poi
rws
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City of Iona's Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing on
the evening of March 10, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. at the Iona Community Center, which is
located at 3548 North Main Street, Iona, Idaho. The purpose of the hearing is to
reconsider a Conditional Use Permit by Dennis and Linda McArthur. A second public
hearing is scheduled for the evening of April 27, 2010 at 6:00 P.M: at the Community
Center with the City Council for final approval if so recommended by Planning and
Zoning.
If approved, the permit would allow Dennis and Linda McArthur to allow non -family
members to live in their home with them in exchange for help with paying for the cost of
the monthly upkeep of the home.
If you have any comments concerning this request, they will be considered at the public
hearing. Comments may be made in writing, but must be received by the City Clerk
before the public hearing.
Dated this 26`h day of February, 2010
Respectfully yours,
Robyn Keyes,
City Clerk
Publish: Fifteen (15) days prior to hearing