Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-07city council minutesBOOK 46 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2005 7:00 P.M. The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nancolas. PAGE 105 Pastor Way Fine from the Memorial Baptist Church was not present to offer the Invocation. The Mayor asked that everyone remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Roll of the City Council was called with the following members present: Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker and Oates. Absent: None. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Mayor Nancolas acknowledged the attendance of the Caldwell High School government class and had them introduce themselves. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Oates to amend the agenda by adding under New Business an item 3A — to consider a managed network service agreement and an item 3B — to potentially authorize funds for investigation work on property acquisition. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: None. Absent and/or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mike Kaplan, 3323 Marble Front Road, addressed the Council concerning traffic issues on Marble Front Hill Road. He stated his concern regarding safety and the possible approval of a newly proposed subdivision within the area - Montecito North. Mark Hilty, City Attorney, and the Mayor encouraged Mr. Kaplan to present his petition during the scheduled future public hearing for Montecito North. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor presented the following items on the Consent Calendar for approval by the Members of the City Council: 1. Approve acceptance of the minutes from the Regular City Council meetings held on September 6, 2005 and September 19, 2005; 2. Approve acceptance of the minutes from the Caldwell Public Library Board meetings held on June 2, 2005 and July 6, 2005 and August 4, 2005 and September 8, 2005; 3. Approve acceptance of the minutes from the Friends of the Depot meetings held on August 10, 2005 and September 14, 2005; 4. Approve Order of Decision for Case No. SUB /PUD- 121P -05 for Indian Creek Subdivision; 5. Approve Order of Decision for Case No. SUB- 120P -05 for Michala Subdivision; 6. Approve Resolution No. 138 -05 accepting a water main easement with Dr. Russell Snow at 119 W. Logan St; 7. Approve Resolution No. 139 -05 accepting a public right -of -way deed from Dr. Russell Snow; 8. Approve Resolution No. 140 -05 authorizing execution of Amendment Fifteen to Agreement for Operations and Maintenance Services with Professional Services Group, Inc. for the Wastewater Treatment Plant; 9. Approve Resolution No. 141 -05 authorizing execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with FAA, State Historical Preservation Office, and Pioneer Irrigation District for the relocation of Canyon Hill Lateral; 10. Approve Resolution No. 142 -05 authorizing execution of a Standard Form of Agreement for Professional Services with J -U -B Engineers Inc. for the Franklin Regional Lift Station in the amount of $395,946; 11. Approve Resolution No. 143 -05 accepting the auditing services of Eide Bailly, LLP for the fiscal year 2005. MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: None. Absent and/or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED OLD BUSINESS (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT A VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY REQUESTED BY JAMES R. MCGARVIN) The Mayor declared this hearing open. Councilman Hopper commented that he was not initially involved with the discussion when this case was first heard before the Council and would therefore abstain from any vote on this matter. Mark Hilty, City Attorney, gave a summary of this item. He requested that if the vacation is approved, that any legislation be continued to the following meeting for Findings and Conditions of Approval to be included within the final document. BOOK 46 PAGE 106 Jim McGarvin, 1608 Parker, acknowledged being sworn in and presented letters from Jack's Tire & Oil indicating their interest to establish their business at the Scott Fulcher Trucking site and Peterbilt of Idaho stating their interest in the property located at 2103 Franklin as a satellite property site for their business. The Mayor labeled these letters as CC -1004. Mr. McGarvin noted that he had been in contact with Mr. Rainey and suggested that the access be moved to the north, one lot and then close the northerly road. This would give the de la Concepcion's access from the south of the property and still give them a 56 -foot right -of -way. He has not heard any comment back of whether they would approve of this or not. Mr. McGarvin presented a map illustrating this alternate proposal. The Mayor labeled this document CC -1005. Ron Rainey, 110 North 9"' Street, acknowledged being sworn in and reported that Mr. McGarvin had contacted him with the alternate access approach. Mr. Rainey presented the original plat of the subdivision dated September 18, 1946. He noted that the original plat indicates a 70 -foot right -of -way, rather than a 30 -foot right -of -way as presented earlier. He also noted that the County Assessor's official plat refers to this unnamed road as Cedar Street. Mr. Rainey stated that Mr. Fellers and the Mr. de la Concepcion will pay substantially more than the $.57 per square foot. They have authorized Mr. Rainey to offer $1.00 per square foot for the property that the City has determined to be surplus and wanting to sell. The will not ask that the roads be vacated and in addition, they will maintain these roads. They are requesting that the City deny the request to vacate. The Mayor labeled Mr. Rainey's letter at CC -1006 and the two additional documents presented by Mr. Rainey as CC -1007 and CC -1008. The Mayor asked Gordon Law, City Engineer, if he was aware that the plat indicates the right -of -way as Cedar Street. Mr. Law stated that the plat map was available to the Engineering Department and that he was not certain why it was noticed out without using the proper street name. Mr. de la Concepcion, 910 N. 19 Avenue, reported that he has used the road for approximately 30 years and for fifteen years he has used it nearly every day. He urged the Council to reconsider the approval of the vacation request. Bill Feller, 512 North 16"' Street, reported that he had tried to buy this piece of property years ago and was told that the City cannot sell their property, but they could trade. He had questions about the sale and how it was handled. The Mayor asked Mr. Feller if he understood the process to sell City property. Mr. Feller answered yes, but he is not sure it was handled right. Councilman Wells noted that Cedar Street comes very close to the intersection of 16"' and Denver. He asked Gordon Law if Cedar Street could be opened up in the future for development based upon its location. Mr. Law responded that there are five- legged intersections in other places in the country; however, the City tries to avoid these in ever instance where we can. These intersections are not desirable, but they are not impossible. Councilman Wells asked Mark Hilty if he could give the criteria for vacations. Mr. Hilty stated that the Council needs to look at whether the vacation is in the best interest of the community, generally. The Traffic Commission has a set of criteria that help in analyzing questions from a best interest perspective as well. In the presence of opposition, the Idaho code states that there are findings that you need to make: 1) that the roadway you are seeking to vacate has not been open for a period of at least five years, and 2) that vacating the right -of -way would not leave somebody land- locked. The Mayor asked Mr. Hilty to explain the term "open" with regards to this roadway. Mr. Hilty stated his understanding is that the roadway is open and maintained by the City, at the taxpayer's expense, for public access. In rebuttal, Mr. McGarvin asked to review the documents that Mr. Rainey presented and the location of the 70 -foot right -of -way. Mr. McGarvin stated that Mr. Rainey's information was different than what he was provided with and has worked off of for the last several years. Gordon Law indicated that there wasn't anything from these documents that calls into question anything about the hearing tonight or the status of the right -of -way. The only issue is whether it should have been noticed as named street, given the name of Cedar, or whether it was an unnamed street. MOVED by Dakan, SECONDED by Wells to close the public testimony portion of this hearing. Councilman Oates stated that he is not sure that the Council is in a position to come to a decision on the points that Mr. Hilty highlighted about the vacation and its impact to the existing property owners. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: Oates. Absent and/or not voting: Hopper. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE LIST: The Mayor presented the Evidence List: Staff report, sign -up sheets, CC -1000 (a map presented by Mr. Law), CC- 1001 (an aerial photo), CC -1002 (a large map ofthe area), CC -1003 (a letter from West Valley Construction dated 10- 17-05), CC -1004 (a packet of letters from Jack's Tire & Peterbilt presented by Mr. McGarvin), CC -1005 (a map of the right -of -way presented by Mr. Rainey), CC -1006 (a letter from Mr. Rainey), CC -1007 (a plat showing the name of Cedar Street presented by Mr. Rainey), CC -1008 (a large copy of the plat dated 1946 presented by Mr. Rainey). MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Blacker to accept the Evidence List as presented. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Blacker, Oates, and Dakan. Those voting no: None. Absent and /or not voting: Hopper. MOTION CARRIED BOOK 46 PAGE 107 The Mayor asked Mark Hilty for the process in making a decision on this vacation. There was discussion among the Council Members concerning the decision with granting the vacation of right -of -way given the information that has been presented. MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Oates to deny the request for vacation. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Blacker, Oates, and Dakan. Those voting no: None. Absent and /or not voting: Hopper. (CONSIDER BILL NO. 32 [ORDINANCE NO. 25671 ACCEPTING A VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY REQUESTED BY JAMES R. MCGARVIN) This request was denied in the above public hearing. (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING [LEGISLATIVE] ON CASE NO. OA- 69 -05, TO ADOPT THE CALDWELL CITY CENTER ZONING DISTRICT) The Mayor gave a summary of this item and noted that at the last public hearing there was a motion to have this item stand as the first reading. However, the ordinance was never read by title nor was there an ordinance at Council that was ready to be read. Tonight, whatever action is taken, the motion will need to reflect this. Diane Kushlan, P.O. Box 8463, Boise, presented Draft #10 dated October 24, 2005 that reflects changes and amendments made in response to the testimony and the comments from Councilman Wells at the last meeting. These have been reviewed by the Steering Committee. She reviewed and explained these changes and interpretations in the proposed ordinance. Councilman Wells read through language changes for clarification and interpretation purposed regarding permitted land uses, change of use, demolition, the design review process and appeal process. Diane Kushlan and Debbie Geyer provided information to assist with clarifications and intent. The Mayor spoke about interpretation and intent of the language concerning demolition. He stated that Council can correct language under demolition to have it read either that "no structure" or "no historical structure." MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Hopper to close this public hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Wells, Blacker, Oates, Hopper, and Dakan. Those voting no: None. Absent and /or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDER BILL NO. 36 [ORDINANCE NO. 25711, ADOPTING THE CALDWELL CITY CENTER ZONING DISTRICT) The Mayor stated the recommended changes: add the word "use" in the transitional portion of this document. Councilman Hopper clarified the portion as Chapter 4, section V, paragraph 4, in the last sentence. MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Blacker to accept the language based upon the Ms. Kushlan's recommendations and to include the word "use" in the section Mr. Hopper discussed. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: None. Absent and /or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor read amended Bill No. 36 (Ordinance No. 257 1) by title only: THIS IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CALDWELL, IDAHO, ADDING A NEW ARTICLE TO CHAPTER 10, ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS CITY CENTER ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR THE DISTRICT AREA OF APPLICABILITY OF THE DISTRICT, ALLOWED USES, PRESCRIPTIVE AND PERFORMANCE -BASED DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS, DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, AND APPLICATION PROCESS AND DEFINITIONS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO IDENTIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Wells to have this stand as the first reading of amended Bill No. 36, bring it back at the next meeting with a summary for publication to be approved and to bring it back with the recommendation to waive the three reading process and pass on the second reading. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: None. Absent and/or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED The Mayor declared a 5- minute recess. (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING [QUASI - JUDICIAL] ON CASE NO. SUB- 108(2)F -03, A REQUEST BY LANDMARK ENGINEERING & PLANNING, INC. FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF PHEASANT RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2, CONSISTING OF 26 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 1 COMMON BOOK 46 PAGE 108 ARE LOT WITH THE REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEW AND SIGN) The Mayor declared this public hearing continued and open. Debbie Geyer, 621 Cleveland Blvd., acknowledged being sworn in and gave the staff report. She read a memo from Darrin Hibbs regarding a financial guarantee amount of $162,658.43 for items remaining to be constructed. The Mayor labeled this memo as CC -1000. MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Dakan to close the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: None. Absent and /or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED EVIDENCE LIST: The Mayor presented the Evidence List: Staff report, sign up sheets, final plat, and CC -1000 (a memo from Darrin Hibbs). MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper to accept the Evidence List as presented. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED FINDINGS OF FACT: MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Blacker to accept the facts as outlined in the staff report, the public testimony given this evening, the evidence list Council approved, and note that there was no opposition to the application. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED K!] ,[f!rIeM[!]►LIK ]0IM V MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Blacker that the Caldwell City Council has the authority to hear requests for final plat approval and to approve or deny; the hearing was legally noticed and conducted within the guidelines of applicable codes and ordinances. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED ORDER OF DECISION: MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Caldwell City Council orders that Case No. SUB- 108(2)F -04, a request by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. for final plat approval of Pheasant Run #2 to develop 26 residential lots and 1 common area lot on approximately 6.5 acres is approved and to authorize the Mayor to administratively sign the appropriate documents. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper to close this public hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING [QUASI -JUDICIAL] ON CASE NO. SUB- 117P(A) -05, AN APPEAL REQUEST BY OAKWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR AVIATION PLAZA SUBDIVISION) The Mayor declared this public hearing continued and open. The City Clerk swore in those signed up to testify. Mark Hilty, City Attorney, 621 Cleveland Blvd., acknowledged being sworn in and stated that this is an appeal of an administrative decision made by former City employee, Wendy Kirkpatrick. In this situation, it involves a portion of the zoning ordinance, the transportation policies and practices ordinance which speaks to the requirement for a traffic study, primarily when developments are at certain thresholds. It was discovered that the applicant did not comply with this policy in two particulars: 1) the application did contain a traffic study, which is required; however, this traffic study was not commissioned by the City, and 2) the traffic study was not prepared by individual that had been pre - qualified by the City to prepare traffic studies of this type. He gave a background on this development and the subsequent appeal. Patrick Dobie, 777 Hearthstone Drive, Boise, acknowledged being sworn in and gave a background on his expertise as a traffic engineer. The way that the City's ordinance is written and hopefully can be resolved tonight is — what is the most appropriate vehicle for selecting a traffic engineer to work on a project. Should the developer select a traffic engineer or should the engineer be selected by the City? In this particular case, the traffic engineer was selected by the developer. He spoke about the procedure for preparing atraffic study. BOOK 46 PAGE 109 Councilman Wells asked Mr. Doby about him indicating that he did receive a copy of the requirements back in 2004 and also, that he had received and submitted all of the requirements to be on the list for Caldwell, except that he did not complete the recommendation portion. Mr. Doby replied that he was not aware that the City had a process under which they would select a traffic consultant to do the study for this particular development. As far as the requirements for the study, these are pretty much canned requirements. He did receive the letter from the City, he did speak with Mr. Hasson before he began the study and, at the time, he was not aware and he was not informed that the City's policy required that the City would select a person to work on this project Bill Anderson, 604 W. Franklin Road, Boise, a certified public account, acknowledged being sworn in and stated that he was asked by Oakwood Development to review the accounting procedures of the City of Caldwell impact fee as to how it applies to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, section 67 -8201. He recited the accounting and record keeping requirements under this act. He made a request for these records from the City of Caldwell. He received a letter back stating that the City has none of these records available because their impact fee does not come under this ordinance. Ed Guerricabeitia, 199 N. Capital Blvd., Boise, acknowledged being sworn in and stated that it is Oakwood's position that the ordinance applied here is, in fact, an impact fee ordinance. The money that is being paid to commission the traffic study by the applicant on behalf of the City is, in fact, a development impact fee. He made an argument for his conclusion. There was discussion about the validity of the City's ordinance and if not valid, the City's legal obligation to uphold their ordinances. Forrest Goodrum, 1161 W. River Street, Boise, acknowledged being sworn in and stated that he was asked by the applicant to review the Caldwell City Ordinance No. 2506, Chapter 10, Article 6 entitled, "Transportation Policies and Practices" to determine whether or not this ordinance was a development impact fee. If so, was it compliant with Title 67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho Code. He will be offering expert opinion testimony tonight as this is an area that he concentrates in. He provided detail on his qualifications. He indicated that he is fully familiar with the provisions of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. He spoke on the basic background of impact fees. Mr. Goodrum stated that it is his opinion that the Caldwell ordinance expressly mandates the imposition of an impact fee. The Caldwell ordinance is in direct conflict with the impact fee act in at least two important particulars: 1) the Caldwell ordinance imposes an impact fee without following the mandatory blueprint contained in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act and 2) the ordinance substitutes duplicative and adhoc traffic impact study procedures instead of the capital improvements plan and a formula for fair determination of impact fee acts, which is mandated by the Development Impact Fee Act and further requires the individual developer to fund the cost of traffic impact studies. He presented points and options for Council to consider. There was discussion between Councilman Hopper, Councilman Wells and Mr. Goodrum about the City's ordinance requiring a traffic study and whether the fees recovered for this study qualify as an impact fee fund as it does not provide for any capital improvements directly in the traffic infrastructure. Mr. Goodrum maintains that it is still a component under state law. He believes that the City had the best of intentions; the City just didn't adopt the right methodology. The methodology the City is compelling and the cost the City is compelling turns this into an impact fee. Mark Butler, 839 E. Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, acknowledged being sworn in and stated that he is a land use planner. He gave a brief background of his professional career. He discussed five main points raised in his affidavit: 1) The fee charged the developer by the City of Caldwell for processing a land use application when added to the fee being charged for the City of Caldwell commissioned traffic impact study is excessive and unreasonable. 2) The fee charged the developer by the City of Caldwell for the City commissioned traffic impact study is a development impact fee, not a land use application processing fee. 3) The fee charged the developer by the City of Caldwell for mitigation of traffic impact as required in the City of Caldwell commissioned traffic impact study is a development impact fee. 4) The fee charged the developer by the City of Caldwell for the commissioned traffic impact study is being used for capital improvement planning (CIP), which is not a permitted CIP funding method per Idaho code. 5) The City of Caldwell Transportation Policies and Practices Ordinance and development impact fee charged the developer meet none of the criteria required by Idaho Code, Title 67 — The Impact Fee Ordinance. Mr. Butler continued: He stated that in during his work experience, he has never seen a city actually commission a study. He suggested that if the City eliminated Section 12 of this ordinance and the first section of Section 5 that reads, "the City shall commission traffic study"; he is almost sure that the City would see these people back off. He spoke about fee provisions and system improvement costs as defined by state code. Joe Canning, 5505 W. Franklin Road, Boise, acknowledged being sworn in and stated that he wanted to speak on the process of how the traffic study program works. He read from his affidavit and reviewed language in the City's ordinance regarding the traffic study process. Lloyd Glasgow, 228 E. Plaza, Eagle, was signed up in support of the appeal but he had to leave. Jamie Hoover, 3994 W. Quail Ridge Drive, Boise, was signed up in support of the appeal but he had to leave. Mark Hilty, 621 Cleveland Blvd., acknowledged being sworn in. He gave a summary of the process that City staff took with regards to this application. He explained the intent of the ordinance, which is to look for consensus, not just on who does the study but, what are the parameters of the study, what is the size of the study, what is the area that is impacted, etc. Mr. Hilty stated that one thing that is not an issue for Council to decide tonight is whether the ordinance is wise, whether the ordinance is one we should have, whether it needs to be amended or adjusted. This is not a BOOK 46 PAGE 110 decision that can be made tonight. There is a process required to amend the City's ordinance, which requires public notice and hearing. Mr. Hilty continued by discussing Title 67 -6518, provisions of Local Land Use Planning Act that indicates that the city has very, very broad authority to impose standards and regulate development within the jurisdiction of the City. Also, Title 50, Chapter 3, the City has the responsibility to govern and regulate traffic on city streets and the City can charge fees to individuals who require the city to exercise that regulatory authority. Mr. Hilty continued by arguing that the City's action is only arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable where abuse of discretion where the City has done something that amounts to willful and unreasoning action without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue at hand. Wendy's letter indicates a concise history of the facts, she references the code requirements and the failures of Oakwood to submit a complete application, she tells them how to fix the problem. Mr. Hilty continued by citing legal cases: Fisher vs. Ketchum and BHA Investments vs. State. The question is whether the City is imposing some sort of a fee where there is a whole bunch of money leftover after you get done paying for what you said you were charging it for. Thus, generating this additional income that you can use on whatever else, which would be a tax. Fees are more like the pass through costs. This is a pass through cost. Mr. Hilty continued by asking what is the definition of a development impact fee in the Development Impact Fee Act? No one that has spoken tonight has answered this question. He recited what the legislators say development fees are. "Development impact fee means, a payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements needed to serve the development." Based on this definition, it is not a condition of development approval. It is a requirement in order to file the application if the development is going to generate vehicle trips. He read from subsection (a) of this definition starting with "the term does not include the following." He stated that what the City is doing when it charges the fee for the study is much similar to a plan review or inspection cost than it is a capital improvement cost. Mr. Hilty summarized the traffic mitigation. The Council has the basis for the rejection of the application —the City didn't commission the study and the applicant is complaining that they would have to pay for this. This is basically one issue of concern with the ordinance. At Section 12, there is another concern and this has to do with the proportionate sharing of capital improvements, which comes way at the end. The way this is suppose to work is that you do the study and that tells you, in the first instance, whether you are going to have an obligation for capital improvements. He did agree that when we start talking about the potential for paying a proportionate share of capital improvements in Section 12, he thinks we do have a potential problem which staff has already begun to look at. Mr. Guerricabeitia gave the rebuttal. He stated that it is not their position that the City does not have the authority to require the applicant to submit to a traffic study. The question is whether or not the City has the authority to require that the traffic study be commissioned by the City. He stated that the under the local land use planning act, the subdivision statute that provides cities with the authority to impose subsequent ordinances specifically states that the fees which are imposed to mitigate impacts must comply with the Idaho Development Impact Fee ordinance and is specifically expressed in that section of the statute. He recommends that the City reverse the decision, to accept the application with the traffic study and allow the process to begin, and staff can certainly evaluate the traffic study and review and determine what exactions the City will impose. The Mayor and Mr. Guerricabeitia discussed the cost of the traffic study and the distinction of such fee. There was discussion about the intent of the ordinance and the dispute as to the functionality of the ordinance and how it applies to both the public sector and the private sector. MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper to close the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, and Blacker. Those voting no: Wells. Absent and /or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Oates that yes, Ms. Kirkpatrick did certainly and indeed act appropriately based on the code that was in front of her, while that code may not be absolutely perfect, the salient points of that code as she interpreted it are valid and therefore, she made the right decision and the appeal in this motion would be rejected. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Dakan, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: Wells. Absent and/or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper to close this public hearing. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING [QUASI -JUDICIAL] ON CASE NO. SUB- 83(DAA) -03, A REQUEST BY EARL, MASON & ASSOCIATES FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR MONTECITO PARK SUBDIVISION) The Mayor stated that the applicant has requested to have this item continued to a time and date certain, which is the next City Council Meeting to be held on November 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. BOOK 46 The Mayor declared this public hearing open. PAGE 111 MOVED by Hopper, SECONDED by Oates to honor the request by Rita Earl to continue this public hearing to a time and date certain, which is the Regular City Council Meeting to be held on November 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Hopper, Dakan, Wells, Blacker, and Oates. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN FOR TAYLOR RIDGE SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CALDWELL AREA OF IMPACT) Melodic Halstead, 621 Cleveland Blvd., gave the staff report. This item is before Council tonight, mainly because of the new procedure that staff is just learning about from Canyon County. There is an Idaho State Code, 31 -3805, which requires the County to get approval from the City if they have a subdivision within the area of impact, just on the irrigation plan. It does not matter who will own the particular system; it still requires the City's approval. Mrs. Halstead stated that the action requested is the approval of the irrigation plan. The Engineering Department had a note on the plat that stated that the subdivision would put in a non - potable, pressure irrigation system to the City's standards. MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Blacker to approve the irrigation plan conditioned upon the approval of the City Engineer. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (PURSUANT TO IDAHO STATE CODE 50 -467, TO SET A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 10, 2005 AT NOON FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANVASSING THE VOTES OF THE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005) MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Blacker to set a Special Council Meeting to be held on November 10, 2005 at noon for the purpose of canvassing the votes of the election to be held on November 8, 2005. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED (FINANCE AND HUMAN RESOURCE REPORTS) Councilman Wells reported that the Finance Committee has reviewed current accounts payable in the amount of $1,642,420.38 for the period ended October 31, 2005 and a net payroll in the amount of $232,181.40 for the pay period ended October 15, 2005 and a net payroll in the amount of $204,657.66 for the pay period ended October 29, 2005. MOVED by Wells, SECONDED by Blacker that accounts payable in the amount of $1,642,420.38 represented by check numbers 30697 through 31206 and the total payroll in the amount of $436,839.06 represented by check numbers 8537 through 8768 and direct deposits be accepted, payments approved and vouchers filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: None. Absent and/or not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED (COUNCIL COMMENTS) Councilman Dakan reminded everyone to stop and vote tomorrow. Councilman Wells asked if the two additions to the agenda had been discussed. They had not. (CONSIDER THE MANAGED NETWORK SERVICE AGREEMENT) The Mayor stated that the Appointed Officials were asked to form a committee to review the proposals by three or four different companies and to identify those that fit the needs, make sure they fit in the budget, and especially met the needs of those departments that are extremely dependent upon our technical services. This represents the recommendation that was brought forward and the contract that goes with this proposal. MOVED by Oates, SECONDED by Hopper to approve as requested. Roll call vote. Those voting yes: Oates, Hopper, Dakan, Wells, and Blacker. Those voting no: none. Absent and /or not voting: none. MOTION CARRIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`�4 }� ^�f . :�; .. y I r.. " - - MEENL " -. Ly AMP cz Li6 -A "IYOWAR 4vo