HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008.12.04 Regular Council MinutesMcCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 1 of 14
December 4, 2008
MINUTES
McCall City Council
Regular Meeting
McCall City Hall (Lower Level)
December 4, 2008
Agenda
Call to Order and Roll Call
Department Reports
Public Hearing
Public Comment
Consent Agenda
Business Agenda
Committee Minutes
Adjournment
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Kulesza called the regular meeting of the McCall City Council to order at 5:33 p.m.
Council Member Bailey, Council Member Delaney, Mayor Kulesza, and Council Member
Scott answered roll call. Council Member Witte was absent. A quorum was present.
Council Member Witte arrived at 5:41.
In addition to the Council Members, present were Lindley Kirkpatrick, City Manager; City
Attorney Bill Nichols; Jerry Summers, Chief of Police; Eric McCormick, Golf Course
Superintendent; John Anderson, Airport Manager; Linda Stokes, Acting Treasurer; Michelle
Groenevelt, Community Development Director; Brock Heasley, Parks and Recreation Director;
Brenna Chaloupka, Acting City Clerk / Administrative Assistant; and BessieJo Wagner, Deputy
City Clerk / Administrative Assistant.
COUNCIL WORKSESSION
City Manager Report
Mr. Kirkpatrick went over the upcoming meeting schedule. There will be two meetings in
December. Some additional meetings not on the schedule are:
• The mediation with McCall Aviation on December 8, 2008 - Mayor Kulesza, Mr.
Kirkpatrick and Ms. Groenevelt will be participating as the City representatives
• The Upper Payette River Economic Development meeting is on December 10, 2008 –
Mayor Kulesza and Mr. Kirkpatrick will be attending (Council Member Scott asked that
they request some kind of a report reflecting what has been happening with UPRED)
• The Valley Adams Partnership meeting is on the December 11, 2008 (tentative)
• The Chamber of Commerce general meeting is on December 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m. at the
Shore Lodge, featuring a presentation from John Church, an economist who did
Tamarack’s economic impact report
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 2 of 14
December 4, 2008
The Big Payette Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) met the afternoon of December 4, 2008. It
was the annual reports meeting. A report from the USGS on the water quality monitoring
program stated that this year all four water quality objectives were met.
The State of Idaho’s budget cuts and holdbacks will affect the City directly. The City has
received some revised state revenue estimates that the City may receive $25,000 less than what
was budgeted for the general fund. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the revenue for property taxes is
difficult to predict. That difficulty is due in part to the number of homes foreclosed upon that did
not pay their taxes and how many people just did not pay.
The LOT final report was not ready for Council; Mr. Kirkpatrick will get it to the Council as
soon as it is available. The Golf Course benefited from the early snow that melted, as it enabled
the Golf Course to get some projects done that could not be done during the season. The
Planning & Zoning Commission met earlier in the week and has recommended some code
amendments that will come to Council sometime in January.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that Community Development and the Police Departments are distributing
monthly newsletters. Council Member Scott and Council Member Bailey stated that they did not
see the police department newsletter; Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that he would follow-up to
ensure they receive it.
Consolidated Department Head Report
Council Member Scott questioned the leakage test of the big pond liner that had failed, and
asked what the level of concern with this failing is. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the results from
the first test, above the underdrain system outlet, at the outlet, and below the outlet, the numbers
were essentially the same which is positive. The leak test will always fail due to the testing
requirement of the pond being full and no ice present in the pan. The only time it is full is in the
spring and temperatures are still freezing at night. As part of the testing methodology, the City is
working with DEQ to have a test that would accurately test the system.
Council Member Bailey asked if at the next meeting they would appoint the Environmental
committee. There were currently seven applicants and the Council commented on the excellent
candidate pool.
Council Member Bailey clarified the reason for the Pancake House receiving their code non-
compliance letter was due to a code violation of their development agreement. They need to
bring their parking lot into compliance by McCall City code and the conditions of approval. The
development agreement that they signed said they would pave it. There was some discussion on
some different paving alternatives, one of which is made with recycled tires that is porous and
allows the water to drain through as opposed to run off. It was stated that there is one
development using this type of asphalt.
Council Member Bailey asked about the status of the Public Works Director. Mr. Kirkpatrick
stated that they are still looking for the right applicant.
Council Member Scott asked if the non-relevant items on the department reports could be
removed so that the Council would not have to sift through to find current information.
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 3 of 14
December 4, 2008
Council Member Bailey wanted clarification of several projects on the aging report marked
“Lardo Development”. Ms. Groenevelt clarified that they were the long narrow lots that a
developer was working with several different investors but the developer is no longer associated
with the project, so the property owners are responsible for the bill.
Council Member Witte had a question about the airport and when to expect the comments by the
FAA and would like those comments forwarded to the Council. Mr. Anderson stated that he
should receive those comments by early next week.
Council Member Witte questioned the VARHA report and the referenced research of community
housing ordinances, and asked will there be a report from that research. Ms. Groenevelt stated
that it should be coming. It was suggested that a deadline should be given. It was also clarified
by Ms. Groenevelt there is not a committee for community housing.
Council Member Bailey asked about the Greystone Village No. 3 infrastructure project and if the
developer was bonded to complete it. Ms. Groenevelt stated that they had a letter of credit which
has expired, and now there is no security for those improvements. Mr. Nichols stated that all
letters of credit have an expiration date and should be calendared at least 60 days prior to
expiration to verify that the project is either done or have the letter of credit renewed. Mr.
Kirkpatrick stated that they would look at what the options are and report back. Council Member
Delaney also wanted staff to look at the process breakdown that allowed the letter of credit to
expire.
Council Member Scott questioned why only half the lights at Legacy Park are lit. It was clarified
that they additional lighting is for when there are events that warrant extra lighting.
Mayor Kulesza led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
AB 08-222 Development Impact Fees and Capital Improvement Plans
Mr. Kirkpatrick clarified that this had been noticed as a public hearing, and the City is still
working with the consultant to answer some questions and have an amended report released and
available for review. Staff recommendation is that the Council accepts comments and then to
continue the public hearing until January 8, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Council Member Bailey feels that
making the Impact Fees and Capital Improvement Plan as part of Chapter 3 zoning is a mistake.
He did some research of other cities that have adopted Impact Fees and they have put it as part of
their building code or as a separate title in their code. He also had some suggestions of adding
some paragraphs, and to possibly phase in the impact fees over time. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that
some of the items that Council Member Bailey has brought forward are part of what is being
worked on with the consultant and legal counsel, as well as other concerns that were brought
forward by the public.
Mayor Kulesza reiterated that any comments that are made at this time would only pertain to the
current document and that particular document may be revised between December 4, 2008 and
January 8, 2009.
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 4 of 14
December 4, 2008
Mayor Kulesza opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m.
Victor Villegas - 1405 West Main Street – Board of Realtors representation – He asked the City
Council to look at whether the document complies with the Idaho Statutes. He handed out a copy
of the Idaho Statutes for the Council. He stated that the calculations in the current Capital
Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study are incorrect, and if the City is going to collect a fee
then they can only collect a fee based on growth. Mr. Villegas asked that the Council would read
the Statutes and compare them to the Capital Improvement Plan.
Brian O’Morrow - 1195 South Samson Trail – a member of the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee – He stated one of the concerns that the Advisory Committee had was that Valley
County would also be enacting impact fees. They were concerned about the difference between
the two and whether building within the City would be discouraged. The Advisory Committee
last met in the spring of last year and the plan has had at least one revision since that time, and he
would like to offer the Advisory Committee’s services to at least look through the document and
give their input or advice.
Mike Hormaechea – PO Box 6887, Boise – He stated that impact fees would affect their
existing project, Alpine Village, in the amount of $1 million in additional fees. The current rate
of cost for rent in a commercial building range from $8 - $15 a square foot a year. With a $21
impact fee on top of that, the first 1.5-2.5 years of business of rent would be just paying off the
impact fees only – no return on investment, and no coverage on any other development or
infrastructure cost. He stated that no retail development could withstand those kinds of fees. He
does not know how new retail could come to McCall; it would make it difficult to bring new
retail to McCall. In his opinion, with a depressed housing market, to add on this type of expense
would be a deal breaker. He asked that the Council not adopt an impact fee ordinance, in this
economic climate it is not the right time for it to happen.
Steve Millemann – Hormaechea family representation –Mr. Millemann stated that he and his
associates have conducted a first level analysis of the Capital Improvement Plan and of the
ordinance and feels it is “fatally flawed” and would not hold up in court. He does not think these
defects are technical or minor or can be fixed with a paragraph, so he gave his comments. He
does not feel that the work has been done, and as a result the fees would have devastating effects
on the already devastated economy. He feels that it would be challenged and that it would not
stand up in court. He stated his intent is to work with the Council and that the impact fees would
be a mistake.
He stated that even despite the legal issues, the fundamental scheme behind the statute is a very
detailed process starting with a detailed specific inventory of the land uses and the existing
facilities. What would the impact of the projected specific land uses would be on the capital
infrastructure. He stated that they need to look at what the City’s performance standards are and
what are the appropriate current standards so that with accuracy deficiencies can be determined.
Impact fees cannot be used to correct any current deficiencies; they can only be used on specific
impact from growth. He does not think that under this plan, the two can be distinguished.
Mr. Millemann continued to say that the facilities that would be needed for that growth would
need to be established to determine the nexus between particular land uses and facilities. He
stated that the methodology requires that specific deficiencies are addressed with a specific plan
to fund them, including from what sources, on what time frame and on what schedule. It then
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 5 of 14
December 4, 2008
requires that the future growth driven demand be quantified with specific projects. He stated that
the current plan does not reflect those specifics and without specifics how can it be shown what
the funds were spent on specifically. He stated that at the end of the process; develop a funding
plan which looks at all other sources of funding.
Mr. Millemann suggested to the Council that they seek independent legal opinion of the Capital
Improvement Plan and ordinance from a firm that has no vested interest in the outcome to the
City or developers within the City. He asked that the Council get its own independent analysis,
and take out a one page ad in the Star News to tell the public what the impact fee number would
be for the general public. He stated that the general public has no idea of what is being
contemplated. He stated that a few examples of deficiencies in the Capital Improvement Plan are
not identified. When there are none listed it assumes that there are no deficiencies. Fees cannot
be used to correct current deficiencies. He stated that there was no evidence of external data
being collected. He stated there is a complete absence of reference to any specific project in the
CIP. There are summary numbers for summary categories. It does not say how or when the
money would be spent. He feels it is unfair and in direct contradiction of the state statute. He
stated that until the analysis is done a fair product cannot be reached.
He stated that the budget categories of the CIP, the studies necessary to answer the questions he
asked the Council, are scheduled to be done after the ordinance is passed. He also stated that
according to the city’s budget, the impact fees will be used for analyzing what storm water
facilities might be needed. He stated that the process the City is using is backward when they
have already included impact fees in their budget process before the impact fees have been
implemented. Under the statute, the City is supposed to know the information prior to setting the
impact fee. He also stated that there is an absence of any other available funding sources. He
stated that there is no analysis of the incremental tax benefits to the City. The statute requires
that as part of the development of impact fees, the analysis of alternative funding sources occur.
He stated that the ground work the law requires has not been done.
Mr. Millemann stated that as a policy issue, the people that are fighting to hold their businesses,
their jobs and their homes, with the approval of impact fees the people of McCall would be
severely impacted.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Kulesza asked for a motion to continue the public
hearing at 6:41 p.m.
Council Member Witte moved to continue the public hearing until January 8, 2009 at 6:00
p. m. Council Member Delaney seconded the motion. In a voice vote, all members voted
aye and the motion passed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Kulesza called for public comment at 6:42 p.m.
Hearing no comments, Mayor Kulesza closed the public comment at 6:42 p.m.
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 6 of 14
December 4, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA
Staff recommended approval of the following items:
• Warrant Register printed on November 26, 2008
• Payroll Report for Period ending November 14, 2008
• AB 08-234 Alcohol Beverage Catering Permits
• AB 08-230 Application to Hang a Highway Banner – 2009 Special Olympics
World Winter Games
• AB 08-235 Purchase Agreement for Former Fire Station
• AB 08-232 2009 Winter Carnival Venues
• AB 08-236 Grant Application, Snow Removal Equipment
Some discussion took place to clarify the warrant register and the agenda items.
Council Member Delaney moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the correction to the
grant application to remove the statement “Not applicable. The County owns and operates
the FBO” on the Required Statements page. Council Member Bailey seconded the motion.
In a roll call vote, all members voted aye and the motion passed.
BUSINESS AGENDA
AB 08-233 Idaho Power Company - Adopt Ordinance to Increase Franchise Fees
Brenna Chaloupka, Acting City Clerk, gave a brief history of this agenda item stating that a letter
of interest to increase fees was submitted to Idaho Power by City Staff in September, 2008 and
staff met with Idaho Power to begin the process of increasing the franchise fee to 3%. The
franchise ordinance was formally introduced to Council during the October 23, 2008 meeting
and was published in the Star News on October 30, 2008. To date, December 4, 2008, no public
comment has been received, so staff recommended only the first reading of the ordinance, rather
than adoption at this time in anticipation of receiving public comment.
Mayor Kulesza would like it noticed in the paper other than just the ordinance posting. Council
Member Scott asked for clarification of the difference of reading it once now as opposed to
reading once at the time of adoption. It was clarified that by doing the first reading it shows
Idaho Power that the City is moving toward adoption. The first reading does not mean that the
Council is bound to adopting the ordinance; it is just a step toward adoption. If the City is going
to notice it in the paper, then the City needs to ensure that the numbers used are accurate and
ensure that the public understands where the franchise money will be used.
Council Member Delaney moved to read Ordinance 862 by title only, first reading only.
Council Member Bailey seconded the motion and in a role call vote, all members voted aye
and the motion passed.
Ordinance 862 was read by title only, first reading by Mrs. Wagner.
Mayor Kulesza called for a recess at 6:59 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:07 p.m.
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 7 of 14
December 4, 2008
AB 08-237 Marina Development between Legacy Park and Brown Park
Mayor Kulesza stated that here have been many comments on the issue of marina development.
He stated that the Council would accept new comments from the public. After comments from
the public, the proponents for development would have an opportunity to speak on the
comments.
Mr. Kirkpatrick clarified that as the landowner, the Council must determine if any of the
previous agreements, the MOU with McCall Gas Station, Inc., or the extension of lease with
Mile High Marina, requires the City to accept land use applications. Staff has looked at the legal
issues regarding both agreements and what they mean. As a result of the work done by the legal
team and staff members, the recommendation from staff as it relates to Mile High Marina was
that Council negotiates for an expansion. It would be consistent with the terms of the 2007 lease
extension that stated that any request for future additions or expansions would not be
unreasonably denied. He stated that as a condition of the recommendation the negotiations would
center on what was originally proposed, a 100 slip expansion.
For the McCall Gas Station, Inc./Carey proposal, staff recommends that the Council look at the
1995 MOU, along with the legal implications, as an agreement to negotiate. Staff recommends
that the Council enter into negotiations with McCall Gas Station, Inc. The original proposal was
that the marina would be limited to no more than 100 slips. Due to the language in the 1995
MOU and with the concerns raised by the public, the recommendation is that the negotiations be
limited to a marina no larger than 100 slips. Mr. Kirkpatrick expressed the importance of the
Council to repeat at every stage of negotiation process, that any proposal that would be
successfully negotiated would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process.
Mayor Kulesza reiterated that at this point, any negotiations the Council would participate in
would be as a land owner and then if an agreement was made, the Council would assume a
regulatory role. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that it is important that all parties understand that if a
lease is negotiated there is still a condition use permit process that must be followed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that if the Council did decide to enter into negotiations with either or both
parties, the terms of the agreements would have to be defined. There may be some conditions
including, but not limited to:
• Substantial public access including day use slips
• Significant public amenities, such as but not limited to, public restrooms, pedestrian
access to the docks and accommodations for non-motorized users
• Substantially increased lease rate as compared to the 2007 Mile High Marina lease rates
• adequate parking
• no sale of slips
• resolution of Tomlinson dock issue of using City property without authorization
• compliance with very explicit restrictions from Land and Water Conservation
requirements
• any other items that may be pertinent
Public Comment
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 8 of 14
December 4, 2008
Bill Weida – representing the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG), stated that at a recent meeting
they discussed that the current lease does not mention the sale of slips. He also indicated that the
lease states that the only thing that could be done at the marina without approval would be
something with the same dimensions of the current breakwater. This would mean that there
would be no ability to convert the breakwater into a boardwalk. If it were to be replaced it would
be have to be with the current dimensions and the WAG would hold them to that.
In relation to the water quality issue, Mr. Weida stated that the results from the water quality
sampling of the lake looks great for the last year and attributes those results to the major flush in
the spring, a cold summer, and reduced building activity around the lake. He stated that in eight
of the last twelve years the area closest to the City has gone out of limits on dissolved oxygen,
most recently in 2007. He stated that the City does need something for tourist and to help the
economy, so the WAG is recommending the following:
1. The City set a firm limit on the total number of slips it would allow in the areas it
controls and the imperiled regions of the lake. That number is not to be exceeded in
perpetuity.
2. If the City decides additional slips are available, they should be auctioned off or put into
a lottery system.
3. The City should move to capture revenue from existing City owned site by taking over
the operations of the marinas, and turning it into a publicly owned marina.
4. The City should then move to build a dry land Marina to remove some docks at the
existing marina.
Council Member Bailey asked what a dry land marina is. Mr. Weida explained that it is an
operation where the boats are housed in a covered structure on land, typically next to the water.
The boats would be stored in this facility and then when an owner would want to use their boat,
they would call ahead of time and the facility would bring their boat to the lake for them. After
the boat owner is finished they would park their boat at the dock and the facility would remove
the boat and put it back into storage. Mr. Weida pointed out that the additional advantage of a
dry land marina is that it provides storage for the winter.
Council Member Scott asked if the WAG has a perspective on the milfoil contamination from
boats coming in and out of the lake as opposed to the boats staying in the water. Mr. Weida
stated that the perspective is that the more boats that come in and out of different places the
larger the milfoil contamination will be. Mr. Weida also pointed out that the number of people
that use their boats in multiple lakes will still do so even if the number of slips increases.
Council Member Bailey brought up the question of whether the City could set a code that would
limit the number of slips that could be built within the City limits. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that
commercial building of docks is regulated under the zoning code and if it is regulated then it
could presumably be eliminated. Private docks are not regulated by the City other than possibly a
building permit. There was some discussion on the possibility of a code revision to limit the
number of docks and or slips built.
Mr. Kirkpatrick answered the earlier question of what the lease payment was for Mile High
Marina for 2008. He stated that the lease payment was $11,477.60. The City has not yet received
the certificate of gross revenue, however in doing the math, the $11,477.60 translated into about
$287,000 gross revenues from the slips.
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 9 of 14
December 4, 2008
David Carey – Hotel McCall – He stated, in response to the public letters and comments, that
they do not feel that their proposal would exclude public access; it would actually create public
access. Their current proposal does not generate revenue for the City; however they would be
willing to work with the City in terms of what the rental lease agreement would be. As far as the
water quality, they do not want to negatively impact the water quality. Their current businesses
and homes use that drinking water and therefore they would not do any thing to jeopardize the
water quality. He also stated, in response to the public letters and comments, that they do not
think they have agreement, they do have an agreement.
Mr. Carey went on to say that they are willing to build a dock for non-motorized vehicles.
McCall Gas Station Inc. is willing to work with the City to obtain the objectives the City is
looking toward. They are financially viable and would not propose a project they could not do
financially. They have worked with the City for years and feel it has been in a positive way.
They have worked closely with Urban Renewal and are willing to continue that relationship.
They would like to create an area that improves the part of the beach that is in question. They are
excited about the possibility to work on a marina that the City and citizens would like to see, a
quality marina that would not exclude the public and not be exclusively private. He stated that
previous projects they have done are examples of public uses and positive relationship with the
City. He understands that by saying “yes” to looking at the proposal does not mean it will be
approved during the Planning and Zoning process, but he would like the opportunity to try.
Brian O’Morrow – Mile High Marina – Mr. O’Morrow responded to public comments and
letters by stating that water quality is important. He and his partners understand that the burden
on them is to prove that they are not adversely affecting the water quality. They feel that they
can prove that they can improve water quality as part of the goal of their project. They appreciate
the comments from the WAG and the suggestion of a dry land marina. After hearing the idea
after the first meeting, they had started to pull some ideas in to their project. Their plan would be
to store the boats off site and then bring them in for temporary use. He addressed the issue of
economics and why isn’t the City considering a marina. It was his opinion that by allowing
private industry to do the marina is more economical for the City. The cost of building the slips
is not as expensive as it is to run it.
Mr. O’Morrow went on to say that they are not opposed to limiting the number slips on the lake.
However, he stated that through an analysis of the carrying capacity of the lake and where the
additional slips should be, their analysis showed that the lake could handle an additional 800
slips and, by some industry standards, an additional 2000, depending on who has done the study
and how it is being compared. Their idea was they would find the ideal location and put 400
slips there and deal with demand, ultimately giving the City and the county the opportunity to
draw the line to the total number of slips on the lake.
Mr. O’Morrow appreciates the difficult decision the Council has to make and looks forward to
working with the City on whatever direction it may go. He stated that some of the comments
from the public may reflect some misunderstanding from the public and he would like to clarify.
The issue of the public access question, due to safety concerns, it is not been a good public
access place. Their proposal includes some use of private property that adjoins Brown Park and
that by allowing this proposal they could actually be preserving open space. They understand
that the Council may or may not feel obligated to entertain negotiations for as many as 100 extra
slips at Mile High Marina. The reason they did not propose 100 slips is that they feel the 400 slip
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 10 of 14
December 4, 2008
plan is better than a 100 slip plan. He stated that they think it makes more sense for the area and
is better for water quality, they think it is better for public access; it would meet public demand,
and provide and maintain the open space. He understands that the Council may not feel legally
obligated and may not consider a proposal of more than a 100 slips, but they think that in good
faith the Council should look at all the options.
Mr. O’Morrow continued that it is the perception that if the community is going to be
environmentally conscious that it obviously means no motor boats; however they feel that there
are a lot of environmental positives to have the additional slips at the marina such as less
vehicles in the downtown area, less motors idling while they are launching their boats, less need
to pave and have asphalt trailer parking, and with the access to public transit and bike paths it
makes it easier for people to use their boats without having to actually drive there. Therefore it
makes more sense to allow this project to go forward. The other question as to whether they can
improve water quality, they think they can remove organics, they think the surfaces for parafiten
are negligible in comparison to other conditions that are currently in the lake. They could prove
that they could improve the oxygen levels in the lake.
Mr. O’Morrow also addressed the comments on the comprehensive plan stating that they can
answer all the questions of how their proposal meets the conditions of the comprehensive plan
and the Smart Growth principles. He also stated that it was the first chance they had to look at
the staff report and they can live with most of the stipulations set by the City of McCall. He
stated that it was their understanding that when the lease was originally renegotiated with Mile
High, part of their reason for substantially with raising the lease rates in 2007 was that the
expansion of the marina would be included. They look forward to the opportunity to work with
the City.
Council Member Scott asked about the question of the alleged multiple empty slips at Mile High
Marina last summer. A representative from Mile High Marina responded that they may have the
perception that there are empty slips because some people may only use them minimally while
paying for it for the season. It was also clarified that there are currently 168 slips.
Council Member Bailey asked about the renegotiation of the lease extension in December, and if
they had in mind at that time an increase in the number slips. Mr. O’Morrow stated that with the
lease extensions, they had anticipated that the Marina would expand. There was no exact number
at that time as to how much it would expand. Mr. O’Morrow indicated that Mr. Gerblick would
not have signed the lease if he had not expected some marina expansion.
Mayor Kulesza stated that neither in the lease that was brought to Council nor in any of the
Council minutes was expansion ever discussed. The possibility of expansion only shows up on
the final signing of the lease expansion, and that only indicated that any future expansion would
require Council approval. Council Member Bailey asked Council Member Scott if she had
recalled any discussion on the expansion of the marina during those negotiations. Council
Member Scott stated that she was aware of some intent at some point to expand and her
recollection was that it was in the range of 60-70 additional slips.
Council Member Bailey stated that Mile High Marina had applied for an application to expand
the marina by 70 slips. There was a drawing that was attached to the application that was
prepared in January 2006. The drawing and the application did not agree with the number of
slips proposed. When Mile High Marina’s lease was extended, this was the possible extension
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 11 of 14
December 4, 2008
that Council Member Bailey had thought of when they wanted to propose an expansion. In April
2006 the application went to the Planning and Zoning meeting which included the same drawing
with a letter that indicated 70 slips. His understanding of the Marina expansion was that of 70 as
shown in their original drawing.
Council Discussion on the Marina Issue
Mayor Kulesza addressed the first question of whether either agreement, with Mile High or
McCall Gas Station, Inc., requires the City to accept the land use applications for marina
development. He stated that the Council has read both the lease with Mile High Marina and the
Memorandum of Understanding with McCall Gas Station, Inc. and his understanding is that
neither requires the City to accept the applications. He stated that both proponents would have to
ask permission from the City, as land owner, prior to submitting an application for review.
Council Member Scott stated that she had to differentiate between what the Council was legally
obligated to and what the Council was morally obligated to as a result of past actions. She stated
that the City had intended to discuss a marina with McCall Gas Station and discus an expansion
with Mile High Marina.
Council Member Bailey stated that the wording is that “other than replacing the existing
breakwater with a breakwater of similar size and dimension, any future additions or expansions
of the marina or related structures and improvements, must be approved in advance by the
McCall City Council, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld.” He stated that if they
were going to submit something that added one boat slip, he does not think the Council could
reasonably withhold approval or even 12 additional slips; however what they have applied for is
an unreasonable request, which the Council can reasonably withhold permission for. The
question is, in his opinion, what is a reasonable expansion request. He stated that there needs to
be some process to be able to proceed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the key to the process is to be consistent with what was proposed in
2007. The original proposal appeared to be 70 slips plus 30 day use slips. If, in fact, it was
misinterpreted and the 70 slips included the 30 day use slips, then 70 is the number to consider.
He stated that the key is what was proposed in 2007.
Mayor Kulesza stated that there are two different proposals, one for 400 slips and one for 200
slips. He does not think it is the Council’s job to come up with alternatives to their proposals. He
wants to look at the current proposals and decide whether to give permission for land use
applications based on those proposals. The key question is, as land owner, does the Council
accept the proposals as presented. He questions whether the expansion of the marina or a
construction of a new marina is the best use of the land and in the best long term interest of the
citizens of McCall. He feels that it is the Council’s job to protect the community’s long term
interest.
Council Member Delaney stated that she thinks the Council should look at the proposals as they
are. She stated that she does not think that a 400 slip expansion is reasonable.
Council Member Witte stated that the agreements that were signed by the City committed the
City to consider an additional marina and she feels that the Council has considered it, they
received public comment, they have heard much public comment over the concern of possible
marina expansion, they have received information on water quality, and feels that they have
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 12 of 14
December 4, 2008
honored those agreements. She does not feel that either proponent’s proposals are reasonable
based on the comments they have heard.
Council Member Scott stated that both parties have expressed the willingness to work with the
City of McCall.
Mr. Carey asked what the process was for this meeting and if he could interject at that time. Mr.
Nichols stated that at this time the Council Members would express their opinions, then if they
had specific issues they wanted Mile High or McCall Gas Station to address, the Council could
list them out, then they could address them for the Council. Then it is up to the Council if they
want them to come and give more input.
Council Member Delaney stated that both parties have expressed willingness to work with the
Council; however, that is not what is being proposed.
Mayor Kulesza questioned if the City is required to accept the proposals or do they need to ask
permission. His opinion is that they need to ask permission. If the Council says “yes” then
proceed, if the Council says “no” then come back with a different proposal to ask permission. He
feels that it is the Council’s responsibility to respond in the best interest of the community.
Mayor Kulesza does not think that an expansion or new construction is in the best interest of the
community. The piece of land in question is a valuable piece of public property and is sure to
increase in value. He feels that it is irresponsible and unfair to ask the public to give up one of
the last remnant of public land for a private venture. He feels that the City is obligated to manage
it in the public’s interest.
Council Member Scott stated that one of the questions she has is what else could be done with
the land, and if the alternative is a steep slope that is not useable, then a marina could be an
improvement. She thinks that there is some rationale for the amenities of a small number of slips.
She thinks that if the Council does approve something it should be on a smaller scale. She is
willing to work and negotiate for amenities and public access for a small number of slips. She
also feels that there could be some job stimulus with this type of a project and that has an appeal.
She is also considering the fact of the huge amount of public comments against any expansion or
construction of a marina and finally she would like to have more information prior to a final
decision. She is willing to work with both parties to get an understanding of what they would
like to do and try to negotiate something that would be a moderate number of slips in exchange
for getting the area cleaned up and maintain public access.
Mayor Kulesza stated that he is willing to work with both parties as well, but not in the context
of the current proposals. It is his opinion to reject both proposals; however he would not object
to other proposals being brought forward for consideration.
Council Member Bailey asked about the proposal that came before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, what would have happened if it would have went through the normal process. Mr.
Kirkpatrick stated that the process would have brought the Council to the same discussion about
the expansion of the lease area. Council Member Bailey stated what would have happened if
they had just submitted the application and had not come to the Council for permission first. Ms.
Groenevelt stated that they submitted an application that was accepted by the City. She stated
that the application was very incomplete; it was scheduled for a public hearing that was never
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 13 of 14
December 4, 2008
held. The Planning and Zoning never looked at it, it was submitted and then the applicant was
informed as to what was needed for them to even look at it, so the process never really started, it
was submitted, then it sat, and ultimately it was withdrawn.
Council Member Bailey asked Mayor Kulesza that since he was opposed to the current proposals
should he give some indication to the two parties as to what the City might accept. Mayor
Kulesza responded that the two parties were currently present at the Council meeting and had
heard the discussion and Mr. Kirkpatrick’s report on staff recommendations, so they should have
some idea as to what the City might want.
Mayor Kulesza moved to deny permission to accept either application as proposed for
marina expansion or construction. Council Member Delaney seconded the motion.
Council Member Bailey stated that in a negotiation process, an alternative proposal should be
presented and the proponents should have some idea of what they could propose that might get
permission. Council Member Delaney stated that the proponents do not need to have a counter
offer, but they can come with a new proposal. Mayor Kulesza stated that he would like to retain
options at this time. He is not in favor of any kind of expansion or construction of a marina for
this piece of public land.
Council Member Witte asked if Mayor Kulesza felt like the Council met the requirements of the
previous agreements by having considered both proposals with public comment, input from the
Watershed Advisory Group, and deliberated the information. Mayor Kulesza responded that he
believes the Council has met the requirement as the entire Council has spent a significant amount
of time considering the proposals and soliciting public comment and considering those
comments.
Council Member Scott stated that it all depends on what else can be done with the land. Council
Member Bailey stated that there was another proposal the previous year that the concessionaire’s
agreement, with the personal water craft vendors, to use the beach on the south side of the
Marina to bring it to the north side of the marina in that area, so there may be an alternative idea.
He also stated that another idea for a proposal included a small boat launch facility.
Council Member Witte clarified that the motion does not preclude further discussion with the
applicants.
In a role call vote, Mayor Kulesza, Council Member Delaney, and Council Member Witte
voted aye. Council Member Bailey and Council Member Scott voted nay and the motion
passed.
Mr. Kirkpatrick clarified that the Council would consider some different proposal from one or
both of the current proponents, or negotiation with staff. Mayor Kulesza clarified that this action
was to pass judgment on the two applications as submitted. Council Member Delaney stated that
one of the main points this process has brought up is that this is public land and that the City
needs to consider what the public wants long term for this land. She stated that it should be an
item for the Council to have further discussion on. Council Member Witte would like to have the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee weigh in on alternate uses as well as the WAG.
Council Member Delaney stated that the City could look into the public comment of the City
running a City owned marina, and get information as to what that would entail. It may show that
a private partnership is the only way to go but without the information they cannot be certain.
COMMITTEE MINUTES
The Council received copies of the following minutes:
• McCall Public Library board of Trustees — October 22, 2008
ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Delaney moved to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Bailey seconded
the motion and in a voice vote all members voted aye and the motion carried.
Without further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
BessieJo W gner, Ci Clerk
McCall City Council Regular Meeting Page 14 of 14
December 4, 2008