HomeMy Public PortalAboutCouncil Minutes 2005 10/13MINUTES
McCall City Council
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2005
Table of Contents
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
5:30 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION
• Litigation Idaho Code §67-2345(1f)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
• AB 05-196 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Recommendation of Final Plat Approval for Spring
Mountain Meadows (SUB-05-2)
PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
• Minutes of October 3, 2005
• Minutes of September 8, 2005
• Minutes of July 28, 2005
• Payment Approval List for Warrant Registers for input dates between 9/16/05 and 10/6/05
• Payroll Report for Pay Period Ending September 23, 2005
• AB 05-194 Alcohol Beverage Catering Permits
• AB 05-195 Collins Planning Services Contract
• AB 05-197 Airport Aid Program Grant Agreement / Resolution 05-22
• AB 05-201 Honorary Citizenship Proclamation
• AB 05-202 Surplus Property / Resolution 05-23
• Payment Approval List for Warrant Registers dated 10/02/05
BUSINESS
• AB 05-198 McCall -Donnelly Schools Facilities Planning Committee
• AB 05-199 McCall Area Chamber of Commerce Update
• AB 05-200 Tree Committee Presentation
• Payment Approval List for Warrant Registers dated 9/10/05
REPORTS
• Consolidated Department Report
• Library Statistic Sheet
• McCall Improvement Committee Minutes 08-11-05
• McCall Improvement Committee Minutes 07-14-05
EXECUTIVE SESSION
• Personnel Idaho Code §67-2345(1 b) to consider a personnel matter
ADJOURNMENT
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 1 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Eimers called the regular meeting of the McCall City Council to order at
5:00 p.m. Council Member Bertram, Council Member Muller, Council Member
Greer, Council Member Robertson, and Mayor Eimers answered roll call. A
quorum was present.
City staff members present were Lindley Kirkpatrick, City Manager; William
Nichols, City Attorney; Rick Harvey, Airport Manager; Carol Coyle, Grant
Writer/Community Planner; and Dan Irwin, City Clerk.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 5:01 p.m., Mayor Eimers moved to go into executive session per Idaho Code
Section 67-2345(1f) to consider pending litigation. Council Member Bertram
seconded the motion. In a roll call vote, Mayor Eimers, Council Member Bertram,
Council Member Robertson and Council Member Muller voted aye. The motion
carried.
The discussion pertained to pending litigation.
At 5:58 p.m., Mayor Eimers moved to come out of executive session. Council
Member Robertson seconded the motion. In a roll call vote, Council Member
Bertram, Council Member Robertson, Council Member Muller, Council Member
Greer, and Mayor Eimers voted aye. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
AB 05-196 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Recommendation of Final Plat
Approval for Spring Mountain Meadows (SUB-05-2)
Council Member Robertson announced that he would be recusing himself from the
discussion as he is a board member for the Spring Mountain Ranch Homeowners
Association.
Mayor Eimers explained how the public hearing would be conducted. He said that the
hearing will begin with a staff report, then the appellants would be given 30 minutes to
present their arguments, the applicant would be given 30 minutes to present their
arguments, followed by public comment in favor of the appeal, public comment in
opposition of the appeal, and then an additional 5 minutes for the appellants to rebut.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 2 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that new staff report had not been prepared for the hearing. He
said that the information contained in the City Council packets was the information
which was presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Mr. Kirkpatrick
explained that the appeal was in response to the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation of final plat approval from Spring Mountain Meadows, an 85 lot
Planned Unit Development on 36 acres. He stated that three appeals were received in
regards to the recommendation and the City Council has to make the decision of
whether to grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that by granting the appeal,
the application would be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission PUD
process. He explained that if the appeal is denied, the application will proceed forward
for consideration by the City Council. Mr. Kirkpatrick said that the Council can also
continue the hearing and extend the matter for up to 30 days. He stated that it is the
staffs recommendation to close the public hearing and make a decision on the appeal
at the next City Council meeting.
Rand Spiwack, 1050 Cedar Lane, explained that he would be the first of the three
appellants presenting to the Council. He said that he would also be speaking on behalf
of Donn Park who was unable to attend the hearing because of an illness. He stated
that the information that the appellants would be discussing are contained in the packet
of materials that was prepared for the Council. Mr. Spiwack stated that there were
several problems with the application which led to the filings of the appeals. He said
that the first problem with the application is a lack of public notification regarding the
January 11, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Spiwack stated that
74 residents should have been sent notification of the meeting but only 1/2 were sent
notices. He said that several of the addresses which were sent notices about the
meeting were incorrect according to the County records. He stated that another
problem with the application is the fact that a tape recording of the January 11, 2005
meeting does not exist which is required by both City Code and State statute. Mr.
Spiwack stated that minutes of the meeting have not been prepared or approved, the
City only has handwritten notes that were taken by the City Manager. Mr. Spiwack
stated that another problem with the application is the fact that the findings and
conclusions for the preliminary plat were not prepared within 30 days as required by
City Code. He stated that the findings and conclusions were prepared by Roger Millar
on May 26th based upon the City Manager's notes and recollection of the meeting. Mr.
Spiwack stated that at the January 11th meeting, a number of conditions were required
of the developer before a final plat application was supposed to proceed. He explained
that one of the conditions of approval was for the developer to obtain a letter from the
Army Corps of Engineers because of the wetlands on the property. He said that it was
recently discovered that that the project will have to go through the entire 404 permit
process but the City has allowed the developer to proceed with infrastructure and fill for
the project which could adversely affect the wetland study. Mr. Spiwack stated that
another condition of approval was for the developer to comply with the
recommendations issued by Holladay Engineering. He said that he believes that the
conditions of approval should have covered each item in the same detail as the letter
rather than a simple reference. Mr. Spiwack stated that another condition of approval
was for the CCNR's to be consistent with those of Spring Mountain Ranch. He said that
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 3 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
the inclusion of Spring Mountain Meadows as a part of Spring Mountain Ranch has
come under the discussion of the homeowners association and they have filed a
declaratory summary with the courts. Mr. Spiwack stated that there are also concerns
about increased traffic along Cedar Lane. He said that Cedar Lane is a private street
since it does not meet the standards required by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
He said that the appellants are concerned about the issues that will result from 85 new
homeowners utilizing the small private road. He said that they recommend that Cedar
Lane be made a cul-de-sac and the developer be required to establish a new road. Mr.
Spiwack said that the 1992 404 permit now has to be revised with a new study that will
be conducted by the Corps of Engineers. He said that the study will be flawed since the
City is allowing the developer to proceed with infrastructure and fill for the project. Mr.
Spiwack stated that the County Assessor provided the City with a letter informing them
of a problem with the legal description of the property. He said that it should have been
a condition of approval for the developer to fix the problem. Mr. Spiwack stated that it is
the appellant's request for the City Council to grant the appeal and send the application
back through the Planning and Zoning Commission process to ensure that public
participation is allowed and the procedural requirements are correctly followed.
Mr. Spiwack said that he would also speak on behalf of Donn Park. He requested that
the City Council review the material that was prepared by Mr. Park. He stated that the
proposed development will be built on a high mountain meadow that contains wetland
and upland areas. He explained that one of the lots that will be included in the
development was not a part of the original Spring Mountain Ranch PUD and needs to
be examined. He stated that development within the wetland areas should be least
dense and 85 new lots are too many. Mr. Spiwack stated that the City of McCall agreed
to protect the wetland area under the terms of the 404 permit application and Golf
Course Maintenance Agreement that was a part of the original Spring Mountain Ranch
PUD. He explained that under the 404 permit the City was required to keep the water in
four ponds to a certain level but they have not maintained them in accordance with the
document. Mr. Spiwack presented a map showing the ponds that are referenced in the
Golf Course Maintenance Agreement and 404 permit.
Mayor Eimers asked who the agreements were with.
Mr. Spiwack explained that the Golf Course Maintenance Agreement was executed
between the City of McCall and Spring Mountain Ranch and that the City was a co -
applicant for the 404 permit. He explained that under the 404 permit, the City agreed to
comply with the clean water act and other provisions required by the Corps of
Engineers. Mr. Spiwack explained that there are four ponds that are required to be
maintained to certain levels and one the ponds is significantly under the requirement.
He explained that since the pond is not being maintained in accordance with the 404
permit, the wetlands in the area are not being recharged and are drying up. He stated
that the issue of the wetland areas should have been addressed before the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat. He stated that the area floods
each year and if the development is approved, the homeowners on Cedar Lane will see
the runoff entering their home sites. He stated that ditches have been developed in the
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 4 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
area without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and dikes have been installed
to prevent water from coming onto the golf course. Mr. Spiwack stated that if the ponds
were properly maintained then the wetlands would be recharged. He said that the
appellants are asking that the City Council ensure that the City complies with the terms
of the 404 permit and to stop the developer from making infrastructure improvements
until the new 404 study is complete.
Lloyd Hess explained that he is a retired Corp of Engineer employee and has worked on
wetland issues for 30 years. He stated that it is important to protect the wetlands in the
area as the State of Idaho has lost 56% of their wetland areas which is one of the
highest percentages in the United States. Mr. Hess stated that another problem with
the application is the road issue. He explained that the development will have a City
standard sized road which will funnel into the narrow Cedar Lane through the golf
course. He stated that such a plan will result in increased accidents. Mr. Hess stated
that Cedar Lane was supposed to be private road under the original Spring Mountain
Ranch PUD. He said that the developer will construct a 60' road in the new
development which will funnel in to Cedar Lane which is only 40' wide. He said that the
design will result in increased traffic and will adversely impact the wetland. He
explained that the road will go through the golf course and the City will need to post
signs advising drivers of the danger during the golf season. He said that the problems
could be discouraged by designing a single lane road. Mr. Hess stated that the property
that is proposed for the development is covered by water in spring. He said that a
requirement of the 404 permit required that the City establish a mitigation plan and
ensure that it is maintained. He stated that a condition of approval for the development
should include the City's established requirements for protecting the wetlands. Mr.
Hess stated that the 404 permit requires that the City establish conditions and
requirements to limit development in the wetland areas. He said that the City needs to
develop a plan in order to meet the condition of the permit. Mr. Hess stated people will
add chemicals to their lawns which will contaminate the wetlands. He said that the City
should require all of the wetland areas in the development to be dedicated as open
space as was done with Lick Creek Meadows. Mr. Hess stated that trees should not be
allowed in the development as the shading will adversely affect the wetlands. He said
that most cities have established a standard setback for a house located on a golf
course of 100' to protect from the nuisances of errant golf balls. Mr. Hess stated that
the project will divert a significant amount of water from the golf course to the homes
located to the north of the development. He said that the City needs to develop a plan
to protect the existing home sites from flooding and water intrusion. Mr. Hess said that
more than 3/4 of the lots in the proposed development are located in wetland areas. He
said that the City needs to develop a plan that will protect the wetlands and reduce the
number of home sites in the development. Mr. Hess stated that the Spring Mountain
Ranch PUD did not address the 24 additional home sites that were approved by the City
and included in the Silvertip plan.
Council Member Muller asked when the additional 24 home sites were approved for the
development.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 5 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Mr. Spiwack stated that at the January 11, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, the Commission approved an increase from 60 to 90 lots.
Amy Pemberton, Millemann, Pittenger, McMahan & Pemberton, LLP on behalf of
Silvertip LLC, explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that was
held on January 11, 2005, was a public hearing for preliminary plat approval. She
explained that the appellants appealed the decision but failed to file it within 10 days as
required by City Code and their request was denied by the City Attorney. Ms.
Pemberton stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that was held on
August 2, 2005, was for final plat approval. She explained that the appeals that have
been filed are in regards to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for
Final Plat approval and the arguments regarding the Preliminary Plat are irrelevant.
She stated that Mr. Spiwack's arguments regarding the notices for the January 11,
2005, meeting are not relevant to the appeal but she will address them anyway. Ms
Pemberton stated that a developer is free to move forward with infrastructure
construction after preliminary plat approval, and that Silvertip only did so after
discussion with the Army Corps of Engineers. She stated that the developer is aware of
the potential risks of proceeding forward with infrastructure construction prior to final plat
approval. Ms. Pemberton said that she does not dispute the assertion that some people
did not receive notification of the January 11, 2005, meeting. She explained that the
developer used Amerititle to identify the properties within 300' of the development. She
said that Amerititle takes the legal description of the property and identifies the
properties which are required to receive notification pursuant to the City Code. She said
that they then contact the County Assessor to obtain the addresses of the property
owners. Ms. Pemberton explained that she has found that several people who have
complained about not receiving a notice of the meeting were outside of the 300'
boundary. She stated that the City only received one notice back that was marked as
undeliverable so there is no reason to think that the City's duty to provide notification
was not performed. She added that several people attended the meeting so it is
apparent that public notice of the meeting was received. Ms. Pemberton reiterated that
the issue of the notice of the January 11, 2005, meeting is not relevant to the appeal of
the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision that was rendered on August 2, 2005.
Council Member Bertram asked if public notification was required for final plat decisions.
Ms. Pemberton stated that public notification was not required pursuant to City Code as
the application is not a public hearing.
Mr. Spiwack said that the Planning and Zoning Commission can require that a final plat
application be conducted as a public hearing if they determine it to be in the best
interest of the City.
Ms. Pemberton said that the Cedar Group is primarily concerned about the impact the
development will have on Cedar Lane. She stated that the homeowners in the group
purchased their property thinking that Cedar Lane was not intended to be a through
street. Ms. Pemberton provided a 1993 plat map of Spring Mountain Ranch to the
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 6 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Council Members. She explained that the plat map shows Cedar Lane as a public
through street and noted that Silvertip was adhering to the original plans of the plat.
She also stated that the plat map identifies the property as being zoned SF1 and SF2
which indicates a higher density than the other areas in Spring Mountain Ranch. Ms.
Pemberton stated that the Plat Map has been part of the City and Spring Mountain
Ranches records since it was approved in 1993, and that the homeowners could have
researched the status of the road before purchasing.
Council Member Bertram asked how much of an increase in density is proposed for the
property.
Ms. Pemberton explained that the original application was for 60 lots in the
development. She stated that in negotiation of the purchase of the property the City
approved an increase to 90 lots. She added that Silvertip is currently planning on
developing fewer lots than what they were approved for. Ms. Pemberton stated that
wetlands are an issue addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers who have been
scrutinizing the project. She said that one of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
conditions of approval is for the developer to obtain an approval letter from the Corps of
Engineers.
Council Member Bertram asked if the golf course is inspected annually to ensure
compliance with the 404 permit.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that the golf course is not inspected annually. He explained that the
City received a new 404 permit for the golf course for additional mitigation work that
they performed.
Ms. Pemberton stated that it was a joint 404 permit because the golf course was part of
the Spring Mountain Ranch development. She said that the current wetland permit
being discussed is a separate issue.
Ms. Pemberton said that Silvertip has worked with the Spring Mountain Ranch
Homeowners Association as they believed it was important to be a part of the
membership. She stated that Silvertip will pay $40,000 to be a member of the
association despite the fact that no other group has ever been charged to be a member.
Council Member Bertram asked why the City should be concerned with the relationship
between the homeowner associations.
Ms. Pemberton explained that the City should not be concerned as it does not affect
them.
Ms. Pemberton stated that Silvertip has tried to work in cooperation with the Cedar Lane
Group but has been unsuccessful. She said that they are a very organized group and
will continue to try to stop the project from progressing. Ms. Pemberton provided
documents relating to the Cedar Group to be added to the record. She also noted that
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 7 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
she would like all documents relating to the development to be added to the record as
well.
Ms. Pemberton stated that the decision before the City Council is to determine whether
or not to approve the appeal that has been received in regards to the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation that was made at the August 2, 2005, meeting.
She stated that page three of the Planning and Zoning Commission's Findings and
Conclusions include all of relevant arguments that have been brought up by the Cedar
Group. She explained that the findings and conclusions require that the developer
obtain an approval letter from the Corps of Engineers and the City Engineer. Ms.
Pemberton stated that the final plat conforms to the City's subdivision ordinance and
preliminary plat and the City Council should deny the appeal.
Council Member Bertram stated that it would probably take some time to complete the
404 permit study. She asked if the permit would have to be in place before the City
Council approves the final plat.
Mr. Nichols said that there is a distinct difference between the City Council approving
the final plat and when the City Engineer signs the final plat. He said that it is not
uncommon for a City to approve a final plat subject to certain conditions being met.
Council Member Bertram stated that the Council should be able to get a feeling if the
wetland issues could be mitigated before approving the final plat.
Mr. Nichols stated that the requirements of the 404 permit may affect the final layout of
the development. He said that the Council probably would not want to approve the final
plat without knowing the restrictions that may be issued by the Corps of Engineers.
Council Member Muller said that he thinks it would be foolish for a developer to proceed
with infrastructure construction prior to having a 404 permit in place.
Mr. Nichols stated that the applicant is only performing construction in areas where it
can be reasonably assured that will not be affected by a requirement from the Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Kirkpatrick added that the developer runs the risk of being issued significant fines if
they develop infrastructure in a wetland. He explained that the current construction had
been endorsed by the City Engineer and does not affect any of the wetlands that have
been identified in previous studies. He said that there was a staking error when the
construction initially began, but it had been corrected.
Council Member Bertram asked if the City Attorney agreed with Ms. Pemberton's
interpretation that the City Council was only making a decision in regards to the August
2, 2005, decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 8 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Mr. Nichols said that he would like to perform further research on the matter before
rendering an opinion. He stated that he thinks the City has an adequate procedure for
obtaining addresses for public notification and realizes that some addresses may be
incorrect according to the County's records.
Mayor Eimers opened the public hearing to those testifying in favor of the appeal.
Ronald Ruff, 1045 Cedar Lane, stated that he attended the January 11, 2005, Planning
and Zoning meeting. He said that he is in favor of the appeal because a final plat
decision is predicated upon preliminary plat approval. Mr. Ruff said that an adequate
record of the January 11, 2005, hearing does not exist and that many issues were
raised at the hearing. He said that that the Commission issued several conditions of
approval for the preliminary plat which still have not been completed, and does not think
that they should grant final plat approval until the conditions are met.
Ryan Moore, 1097 Cedar Lane, stated that the correct process has not been followed
for the approval of the application. He stated that the public has not been allowed the
opportunity to attend the public meetings and go through the Planning and Zoning
process. Mr. Moore stated that the people living down from the development will
experience flooding and water intrusion as a result from the mismanaged wetland
areas. He said that Council Member Robertson's involvement with the sale of the
property and execution of the MOU with Silvertip should be reviewed. Mr. Moore stated
that despite Ms. Pemberton's statement, every homeowner in Spring Mountain Ranch
has paid into the association through the purchase of their lots. He said that the City's
process has been flawed and several citizens have been unable to participate.
Diana Klampt, Timber Circle, said that she attended the January 11, 2005, meeting but
did not receive a notice. She said that she found out about the meeting because her
husband who lives at 1640 Timber Circle received a notice. Ms. Klampt said that the
people who live in the area should have the right to participate in the process. She said
that although no record exists of the meeting there is record of the letter from Holladay
Engineering which was referenced in the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings
and conclusions. Ms. Klampt read the details for the letter and requested that the
Council review it.
William A. Robertson, 1037 Bitterroot, said that the photos from the appellants show
that one of the ponds which the City is responsible for maintaining is low. He said that
the City needs to examine the situation to ensure that they are complying with
requirements that have been issued by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Robertson stated
that he was not a resident of Spring Mountain Ranch or a City Council Member when
the Golf Course Maintenance Agreement was executed with Pete O'Neil, but he knows
that the City was required to abide by the terms of the 404 permit in 1999 when he was
the City Manager. He said that one of the requirements of the City is to put back water
from the treatment plant into the wetland. He explained that the process is currently
done when a backwash is performed at the plant.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 9 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Council Member Muller said that he is not sure that 100% of the backwash is diverted to
the wetlands.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that every backwash is discharged to the wetlands. He said
that the water is diverted to the sewer system when the volume becomes too great. He
added that the City is making changes to the system that will allow more water to be
discharged into the wetland and less into the sewer system.
Mr. Robertson stated that his point is that the Water Department and Golf Department
need to be involved in ensuring that the City is complying with the requirements of the
404 permit.
Scott Acker, Secesh Engineers, stated that he met with Roger Millar and CH2M Hill
before the infrastructure began. He said that all of the current work is being performed
in the upland areas and does not present a danger to the wetlands. Mr. Acker stated
that they did have a staking issue that crept onto the wetlands but it had been corrected.
Mr. Spiwack clarified that there is not an active 404 permit for the property since it has
expired. He said that the City is taking a significant risk by allowing the developer to
begin infrastructure construction if the Corps of Engineers find that the wetland areas
are greater than what was first thought. He said that it is unwise for the City and City
Engineer to approve construction of the property without knowing where the wetlands
exist on the property. Mr. Spiwack stated that he hopes that the City will begin
complying with the responsibility of recharging the ponds.
Rita Park, 1035 Cedar Lane, said that during the hearing several people have spoken
about the one pond which is below the required level. She stated that the City is
responsible for maintaining four ponds and none are being maintained in accordance
with the requirements. She said that she requested that the Golf Course Manager
ensure that the pond by her house was kept up to the appropriate level but the pond
was nearly empty this year. She said that the other three ponds are currently three to
four feet below the level that they are required to be kept. Ms. Park said that since the
City has allowed the area to dry out, it is impossible to determine the wetlands from the
uplands until the Corps of Engineers perform their study.
Mayor Eimers closed the public hearing to public testimony at 7:51 p.m.
Mayor Eimers asked what the implications would be to the City if it fails to recharge the
ponds on the golf course. He stated that if a drought occurred it could make it
impossible for the City to meet their requirements.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that additional research will need to be conducted regarding the 404
permit.
Mayor Eimers stated that it does not make sense for the City to be required to maintain
the pond as it is maintained naturally by nature.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 10 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Council Member Bertram asked if the City should contact a representative from the
Corps of Engineers to assist in answering the City's questions.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the requirements of the permit will need to be checked to
ensure that the appellant's interpretation of the City's requirements is correct.
Mayor Eimers asked for clarification regarding the staff recommendation for action.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the City Council has 30 days to make a decision. He said
that the recommendation is to close the public hearing and table a decision for a future
date.
Mayor Eimers moved to close the public hearing and table a decision on the
appeal until October 27, 2005. Council Member Bertram seconded the motion. In
a roll call vote, Council Member Greer, Council Member Bertram, Council Member
Muller, and Mayor Eimers voted aye. The motion carried 4-0-1.
A break was taken from 7:55 p.m. to 8:03 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Eimers called for public comment.
Hearing no comments, Mayor Eimers closed the public comment at 8:03 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Robertson provided corrections to the minutes of July 28, 2005.
Council Member Bertram asked about the Local Option Tax reimbursement to Hotel
McCall.
Dan Irwin, City Clerk, explained that the Hotel McCall had overpaid their Local Option
Tax for the month of August. He said that they submitted an amended return and
requested that the overpayment be sent back to them.
Council Member Bertram asked if the $28,000 expense was for the purchase of the LID
parcel.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that it was. He said that staff would be preparing an agenda
item for the Council to discuss the use of the property.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 11 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Council Member Bertram said that there were two payments to David Simmonds for cell
phone reimbursement.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that the payments were for two different months of service.
Council Member Bertram asked about the expense to the Senior Citizens.
Carol Coyle, Grant Writer/Community Planner, explained that the Seniors would be
purchasing a six -burner commercial stove. She said that the Fire Department had
noted an inadequacy with the hood vent and ordered that a fire compression system be
installed.
Council Member Bertram asked how long the Golf Department had to pay for the
sprinkler system.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that he would research and find out.
Council Member Robertson said that on pages 23 and 25 of the Warrant Register there
are a total of four line items that add up to $54,000 which are all dated for the end of
September. He said that he wants to ensure that the funds are not being expensed
because it is the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that the items were included in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
He said that the Public Works Department holds onto funds to ensure that all of their
budget lines are covered. He said that the remaining projects are completed only after
they can reasonably be sure that all essential costs are paid for.
Council Member Robertson reported that he received a letter from the Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation notifying the City that their grant request to pave
Pine-Wooley had been denied.
Council Member Robertson said that the Warrant Register includes a $17,000 payment
to I&I contractors. He said that he saw that two manholes had been repaired by pouring
concrete around them. He asked if it would be the solution for all 50 manholes that are
covered in their scope of work.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that placing a concrete collar around the manhole is one the
techniques that will be used in repairing the manholes.
Council Member Robertson said that he would like Bill Keating to give the Council an
update on the progress being made by I&I Contractors.
Council Member Robertson asked if staff expected for the Payette Lakes Recreational
Water and Sewer District to pay a portion of the facility plan needs assessment that was
billed by CH2M Hill.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 12 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that a portion of the cost would be billed to the Sewer District.
Mayor Eimers said that he noticed that there is a $20,000 liability with the current build-
up of compensatory time. He requested that staff encourage employees to take
overtime pay instead of additional comp time.
Mayor Eimers asked if the contract with Collins Planning Services was budgeted.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that it was.
Council Member Robertson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended
and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents. Council Member
Muller seconded the motion. In a roll call vote, Council Member Bertram, Council
Member Greer, Council Member Robertson, Council Member Muller, and Mayor
Eimers voted aye. The motion carried 5-0-0.
BUSINESS AGENDA
AB 05-198 McCall -Donnelly Schools Facilities Planning Committee
Dr. Terry Donicht, Superintendent McCall Donnelly School District, explained that he
was present to give the Council a progress report from the McCall Donnelly Schools
Facility Planning Committee and to get the City Council's input in the process. Dr.
Donicht said that the facilities planning committee began in 2001 when the school's
population was declining. He said that the committee created a plan but it did not
include anything about accommodating the future growth which the District is currently
experiencing. Dr. Donicht said that the committee had been reconstituted with a cross-
section of the community to develop a long-range facilities plan. He said that the
McCall High School was built in the 1950's, the Middle School was built in the 1990's,
Donnelly Elementary was renovated in the 1990's, and Heartland has portable
classrooms that are approximately 10 years old. Dr. Donicht said that enrollment has
increased by 60 students per year and the district will have to take a look at capacity if
the current growth trend continues. He said that the district will also need to take a look
at the quality of the buildings as well. He stated that the high school needs a new roof
and HVAC system, and the buildings need to be checked to ensure that they are
conducive for student learning. Dr. Donicht said that there is a need for improved
technology, advanced placement classes, and fine arts. He said that he and the
committee would be making several community presentations and getting public input.
He said that a long-range facilities plan will be developed based upon the input that is
received. Dr. Donicht said that the end result will probably be a need to approve a bond
measure in the future.
Council Member Greer asked if Yellow Pine is still included in the McCall Donnelly
School District.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 13 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Dr. Donicht stated that it is. He said that the school does not have any students at this
time but that the building is maintained so that it could be opened if needed.
Council Member Muller said that the school's population has had spikes in enrollment
over time and that the committee will need to remember such if they are pushing for a
bond measure. He said that he would like the school to expand vocational -technical
programs.
Council Member Greer said that he would like to see a community college established
in the area.
Council Member Muller said that such an initiative has failed twice in the past. He said
that the district will need to learn from the past mistakes in order to proceed. Dr.
Donicht explained that a community college is considered by the State Department of
Education as higher education. He said that if the district's teachers are certified
through a masters program they could be certified to teach community college classes if
they agree to follow the State's syllabus.
Council Member Muller said that it would be important to get the county commissioners
involved in the process of developing the long-range plan.
Council Member Robertson stated that the County has indicated opposition to
implementing impact fees. He said that there could be a possible opportunity for the
school district to partner with the City to help assist in their future plans.
Dr. Donicht said that the more money that could be collected through an impact fee
would result in less money requested in a bond. He said that the district has money that
they received from Tamarack which is being earmarked for future improvements. He
said that the school district would be more than willing to work with the City on
establishing impact fees.
Council Member Bertram asked for an update on the timeline for implementing impact
fees.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that the city engineer has been tasked with completing several
master plans for the legal basis of implementing impact fees.
Mr. Nichols explained that schools would not be an eligible expense for impact fees
under the current Idaho Law. He said that the state legislature may be open to the idea
in order to reduce the property tax burden on taxpayers.
Dr. Donicht said he understands that another possibility may exist through the
negotiation of development agreements. He said that the school district would like to
work with the City.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 14 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Council Member Robertson stated that he would like to make the school district's
request a priority. He said that the City needs to be part of the solution.
AB 05-199 McCall Area Chamber of Commerce Update
Jim Hinson, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber of
Commerce is progressing financially but they are still waiting on reimbursement from
the court system. He said that it is unclear on what can be done as Mrs. Smith is now
contesting all of the money that was previously awarded to the Chamber. Mr. Hinson
stated that the Chamber has hired a new office manager who is making progress. He
said that two new board members have been approved and it will be essential to ensure
that they remain involved with the organization. Mr. Hinson stated that Lori Strandell
has been appointed the committee person for the Winter Carnival. He said that the
organization is getting back on its feet and that the Chamber, City Council, and City
Staff will need to work cooperatively in order to be successful.
Council Member Robertson said that he has heard of the preliminary success of the
Chamber's marketing agency and that he would like to learn more about it.
Council Member Bertram said that she would like to explore the possibility of having the
City contribute to the marketing effort of the Chamber.
AB 05-200 Tree Committee Presentation
John Parker, Chairperson of the Tree Committee, stated that he had been a member of
the Tree Committee for the last several years. He said that the committee is currently
short by two members and the City lost its arborist during the past year. He stated that
Monika has done a tremendous job filling in and Carol Coyle has identified possible
grant funding that could be used to get Monika certified as the City Arborist. Mr. Parker
said that the biggest project for the Committee during the past year was the fuel
reduction project for the 17 acres located behind the Baptist Church. He said that Carol
Coyle was able to secure the grant funding to reduce the fuel load in the area that
posed a potential safety problem for the residences in the area. Mr. Parker said that
another grant that involved the committee that was the tree island at Rotary Park. He
said that the involvement of the committee led to the planting of natural species in the
island.
Council Member Greer asked if there was any plan to grow commercial timber in the
area that had been thinned.
Mr. Parker said that due to economics it would not make sense to attempt to grow
commercial timber in the area. He said that the committee's recommendation was to
retain the Ponderosa Pine and keep a good mix of the existing species. Mr. Parker said
that the committee has also become concerned about the trimming standards that have
been established by Idaho Power.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 15 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Payment Approval List for Warrant Registers dated 9/10/05
Mayor Eimers moved to approve the payment approval list for warrant registers
dated 9/10/05. Council Member Greer seconded the motion. In a voice vote, the
motion carried 3-2-0.
REPORTS
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that a conditional offer of employment had been extended to an
applicant for the Finance Director position. He said that the applicants for the Police
Chief position had been narrowed to six finalists after reviewing the applications with
Council Member Bertram, Valley County Sheriff Bolen, and Garden City Police Chief
Bensley. He said that phone interviews were conducted with the six finalists and four
candidates would be scheduled for onsite visits. He stated that the process would
include some public involvement.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that the Council discussed the Forest Service property for Riverfront
Park. He stated that he had talked with the local and regional Forest Service offices
and they recommended that the City complete the Special Use Permit process before
seeking Congressional donation of the land to the City.
Carol Coyle, Grant Writer/Community Planner, stated that the week-long EPA design
charette would be conducted during the last week of October. She said that the
members of the design team would give a presentation to the Council at their next
meeting. She said that an inclusionary zoning workshop would be held with the City
Council on October 28th. Ms. Coyle said that the Community Development Department
has finally seen the effects of the moratorium as new land use applications were finally
slowing down.
Council Member Bertram reported that Council Member Robertson, Mr. Kirpatrick, and
she would be having a meeting with the County Clerk and Judge Boomer regarding the
Court Services agreement on the 19th. She stated that at the September 8th meeting
the Council had requested a review of the stop sign at Davis and Pine-Wooley and
requested an update.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that Mr. Keating, Mr. Summers, and the City Engineer were
reviewing the placement of the new sign.
Council Member Bertram asked for an update about the possibility of increasing the
speed limit on the East/West Loop to 35 mph.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that Mr. Keating and Mr. Summers had just finished their review of
the speed limit for the East West Loop. He said that they are both concerned about
driving conditions during the winter and recommend that the speed limit remain at 25
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 16 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
mph. Mayor Eimers said that he would like to see the speed limit on the East/West
Loop increased to 35 mph.
Council Member Robertson stated that he would like the City Attorney to review the
signage restrictions that are contained in the agreement with Mike Eckhart.
Council Member Muller stated that he would like the City Attorney to look at the
possibility of increasing penalties for businesses conducting operations in a residential
area.
Mr. Nichols said that the highest penalty that could be issued in such an instance is a
misdemeanor. He said that each day can be made a separate violation and the City
can request that the District Court issue an injunction against the violator if several
violations have been issued.
Council Member Muller said that he has been receiving complaints regarding Lakeshore
Disposal's operation at 3:00 a.m.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that there is a mechanism in the City Code that allows heavy
machinery to operate outside of the noise ordinance with the approval of the City
Manager. He said that the Police Department is researching to see if Mr. Strope had
granted such an exception to Lakeshore Disposal and he would be reviewing the
language in the Code.
Council Member Bertram said that the City may need to look at the noise from the jets
that idle at the airport in the mornings.
Council Member Robertson warned that strict enforcement of the ordinance could
possibility hamper the City's snow removal during the winter.
Council Member Muller requested the Mr. Kirkpatrick devise a plan and possibly amend
the City Code to address the issues. He asked if the City was taking any steps to
address the commercial use of the City beach.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the issue was being reviewed by the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Committee.
Council Member Muller asked for a status update regarding the fish pen docks.
Mr. Nichols explained that the opposing party had filed for Judicial Review of the
Conditional Use Permit. He said that the courts will review the record to ensure that the
City followed the correct procedural steps when they approved the application.
Council Member Muller asked if the site placement for the bronze statue had been
determined.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 17 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and McCall
Improvement Committee were reviewing sites and would bring a recommendation to the
Council for approval.
Council Member Muller asked if a decision about the proposal by McCall Aviation had
been made.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he was not sure if the Airport Advisory Committee was
discussing the proposal again. He said that the Airport Manager had been in contact
with the airport consultant and had recommended that a decision be tabled until the
completion of the Airport Master Plan.
Mayor Eimers asked if the City could stop Chad Olsen from progressing on his
developments until the sewer line project was complete.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he had met with Mr. Olsen and the Idaho Transportation
Department. He said that the sewer pipe is now onsite and his plan is to begin the work
in October and complete it by the middle of December.
Mayor Eimers said that the City should consider hiring a Plan Reviewer in-house rather
than contracting the duties.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 10:22 p.m., Mayor Eimers moved to go into executive session per Idaho Code
67-2345(1b) to discuss a personnel matter. Council Member Greer seconded the
motion. In a roll call vote, Council member Bertram, Council Member Greer,
Council Member Robertson, Council Member Muller, and Mayor Eimers voted aye.
The motion carried 5-0-0.
The discussion pertained to a personnel matter.
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 18 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes
1
ADJOURNMENT
Without further business, Mayor Eimers moved to adjourn. Council Member
Greer seconded the motion. All Council Members voted aye. The motion carried.
The Council adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Kirk L. Eimers, Mayor
ATTEST:
2a��1 KOIM/0/
SAIY-4,(7 oti'br ty
Printed 12/23/2005
Page 19 of 19
October 13, 2005
City Council Minutes