City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Council will call the meeting order for the record is 4.33 PM on Tuesday, September 8th will begin this afternoon's work session with roll call attendance.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Kavanaugh, Councilwoman Streeter, Councilman Whitlock, Councilwoman Little-Roberts, Councilman Overton, Mayor Simison.

Next time up is adoption of the agenda. Mr. Mayor. Councilman Overton.

There are no changes to tonight's workshop agenda. I move that we approve the agenda as published for the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.

Mayor Mrakas, Motion a second to adopt the agenda is there a discussion, if not on favor signify by saying aye. Mayor Mrakas, I was. Mayor Mrakas, Opposed nay. Mayor Mrakas, guys have it and the agenda is agreed to next step is a consent agenda.

Mayor Mrakas, This rare customer overton we approve the consent agenda for the mayor to sign the clerk to a test.

I have a motion second to approve the consent agenda is there a discussion, if not on favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay, the ayes have it and the consent agenda is agreed to, there are no items moved from the consent agenda so move on to item 15 which this year 27 proposed fee changes and turn this over to Ricardo.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Tonight we'll be presenting FY27 citywide fee updates. Our today agenda will cover the fee development process, our cost recovery methodology following policy 9.14, our goals, proposed fees by departments, and our next steps. First of all, we'll start with the fee. As you can see, finance gets together with the departments And we did cost analysis. We began the cost analysis for each service, identifying the key factors that impact the cost of providing services. Considerations included staff time, materials, and other associated costs. The proposed fees were then prepared for the mayor's review. The mayor provided feedback to each department, helping refine the proposal to their current state. Finance has now consolidated the department's fees proposal and is requesting city council review and feedback. These are our cost recovery, we have full cost recovery finance will calculate all fees at 100% full cost recovery. On the goal is to inform all decision makers, the true cost of providing each service directors mayor and Council will determine proper cost recovery methodology to apply for each fee. Again, we have the full cost, majority cost recovery, partial cost, minimal and no cost recovery. So why are we updating the fees every year and what is the long-term goal with the annual updating? Our goal is to adjust fees annually to align with rising personnel and material expenses, which are impacted by inflation. The City of Meridian aims to recover costs through these fees, except in cases where a full cost recovery is impractical or where the fee delivers a public benefit. Fees for the enterprise funds are structured to fully cover the operational expenses for those funds. With that, we have five departments. Overall, we have 207 fees that we reviewed this go-around. 121 increased. We have 25 that decreased and 59 with no changes. It's an estimated value of about 20,000 in net revenue. We have a breakdown of the different departments, their fees, and which ones went up and down or stayed the same. I'll talk a little bit more in the following slides. The first department that we have is city clerk. They have 33 fees in total on the cost basis that we utilize as staff time pass through state federal agency fees. last adopted for update was in fiscal year 2024 last adopted 2025 resolution 252546 out of these 33 we have 18 fees that increased three decreased and 12 had no changes we project a net revenue impact of about 2600 or about 1.2% compared to current fees. Our next department would be fire. For fire, we have 17 fees, which nine of them increased, seven of them decreased, and one had no change. Our net impact is about 1.3%. And zero of these fees were more than 5%. Next department that we'll talk about. Apologize. Next department that we'll talk about is police. They have 13 total fees. Five of them increase, zero of them decreased, and eight had no changes. We had two that were more than 5% increase. The net revenue is about 403. And our next department would be planning. Planning has a total of 55 fees out of this 55, 43 had an increase, three of them had a decrease and nine had no changes. The net revenue impact is about 21,000 or about 5.2%. Our next department would be Public Works. They have 89 fees in total, 46 of them increased, 12 decreased, and 29 had no changes. Some of the factors for the Public Works is a pass-through cost. So what it cost the city is what we're gonna be providing to the customers. Some notable, A quick overview or quick recap. Our four changes most likely to draw questions from public hearing would be these four. We have water meters that went up. The reason it went up is the costs that are passed through at actual cost supplier pricing rose sharply compared to what we currently have nuisance weed abatement police went up there was a change in code and now we have to bill for legal time. That's why there's a huge increase. For our water system repair and public works, scheduled to repair on actual repair cost, other fees in the same group went down. Then the last one would be TUP. And, apologize. moves on um moves to full cost recovery after several years of staying flat so more like a catch-up um our next steps Our next step from Council is at this point we're looking for feedback, making sure we're in the same correct route for collecting fees and waiting for your blessing to move forward on these fees, change fees. For that, I stand for any questions.

Mayor Mrakas, Your car to counsel any questions for staff, and I know that we have at least a few these. Mayor Mrakas, directors here that can also answer some of the questions if necessary. Mr. Mayor.

I don't have a specific question, just a comment. I am very happy to see this being done on an annual basis. I think too many times in the past we've allowed years to go by between times we update costs and then it's a shocking value on what the new cost is going to be. And I think this is a much fairer way to do it, both for Mayor Mrakas, us sitting up here in the Council positions and for all of our leaders of our different divisions throughout the city, I think this is the best way we can do it, and I appreciate that this is how we're going to do it going forward, it can be a lot better for everyone, thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Mrakas, that's what happened.

Carl, just curious, kind of Councilmember Overton's point, Council President Overton's point about bringing this on an annual basis. Are there any changes into the approach or determining factors when it comes to an increase or a decrease? Are you guys following the same process this year that you followed last year?

Good question, Mayor and Councilman Kavanagh. The process is the same as last year. We've been sitting with the directors and their employees and going through line by line, reviewing time, seeing where we can find Efficiency if there's any if there's any changes also in statute or codes and update accordingly to try and keep it as up to date as possible.

Mr. Mayor, maybe a quick follow-up. Yes, camera car recognize our budget takes a significant amount of time, a significant amount of staff resource time time investment. Does this process, is it a timely process, are we asking our department directors to invest a significant amount of time in the reviewing and determination of these fee changes.

yeah. I can answer that one. So our budget process is like an 8 month long process. This folds into the budget process in a way, because right after our budget development process, we go right into fees. So fees development is throughout the whole entire year. We pretty much kind of coincide with the budget development as far as like time allocations. This is our second go-around. Departments are used to the template, the layout, what we're going to ask, time allocations. They're familiar with each fee already. This is our second year. So we refine the process by just interviewing, asking, hey, has this fee changed? Has the process, has our operating structure have changed to these fees? There are times that where costs or the staff time, minutes, has either increased or decreased and that is what the factor is in to our calculation what drives the increase and decrease hey like this fee now it takes instead of five minutes it's 10 minutes instead of taking two staff now it's one so we ask these questions in meetings uh alongside with our budget process so this and our budget kind of goes side by side okay mr mayor that's my camera

Sounds like then that, you know, departments or taxpayers get a benefit from when we retain talented individuals, both in the roles they do and in the leadership, and that because we're able to retain those people, we're more efficient with our processes, which is, that's one of the largest drivers of reducing these costs. Correct. That's awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Ricardo. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Council, any additional questions on these items? Okay, then Carter you just want to touch on next steps. I know you said it, but just say it one more time since we're at the end.

Yes, um our next step is to make sure staff is moving forward in the direction that Council supports before we process a formal and that would be coming the resolution for you guys.

So we'll see this back for public hearing resolution here in the next few weeks?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. With that we'll move on to IM 16, which is downtown overlay and standards update.

Mayor and Council, thank you for having me here tonight. I'm here this afternoon to update Council on the Downtown Overlay and Architectural Standards project. I will probably just call it project. Over the last few discussions with Council, we received support and direction on a few things. The project is intended to clarify and improve expectations and consistency, implement work that aligns with the comprehensive plan, maintain existing zoning, i.e., a zoning overlay rather than mass rezone, focus on public realm improvements with developments such as sidewalks, implement architectural standards that respond to the downtown area and environment, and importantly to apply those new architectural standards to a smaller focus area. this is a quick summary of our last several meetings uh the work is currently being grouped into three phases or components that's the new word the first is enabling overlay zoning in the city while common in the valley meridian code isn't currently optionate draft code is more or less ready we also need to define the geography not just that we can establish an overlay as an option but doing so for downtown deciding what it means that is well underway finally we need to update the architectural standards manual this isn't starting from scratch but instead keeping what works and then making adjustments these are express standards and importantly council directed staff to keep that element these are measurable yes no and very explicit it's not discretionary review One of the requests by MDC is to further constrain some of the loose alternative compliance allowances that we have now. This effort is lagging behind the other ones a bit. Not behind, just behind. Not behind, not as far along. Here's the project area that Council previously supported, at least as a starting point. The overlay area aligns with the comprehensive plan, which is important. The focus of the larger area work is getting consistent public room improvements. The standards focus area, the smaller sub area in black is where the architectural and site development review is focused. The working groups and more on those in a minute have received these well staff made some arguments to possibly shrink the focus area and the response from that was to not do it, so it was kind of nice to hear that it would impede realizing vision for downtown. We've talked previously about the working groups and who needed to be engaged. Those groups, one focused on the code, one on architectural standards, are helping us to develop coherent public drafts. Initial staff work was developed so others had something to respond to. Once we make revisions and have a strong draft, we plan to share them more broadly. So who did we ultimately asked to involve us partner agencies, a number of them architects builders construction management companies planning zoning Commission rep its historic preservation committee Commission rep the Chamber of Commerce and a few downtown stakeholders and others. there's representation there and other groups as well, like the EDC focus group. The code group is met twice and the standards group once. There have been some themes to discussion with the working groups. One area that has come into focus quite a bit is building frontage priorities, by that identifying streets for architectural and pedestrian-oriented focus elements, building street presence for vibrant pedestrian engagement. We have a lot of streets and many partials fronting multiple streets, corner lots, and not everything can be important. The idea is identifying a street hierarchy from Main Street, the contemplated Festival Street on Second Street, all the way to the other end of the spectrum would be Franklin and Meridian Road, which are not pedestrian friendly. We've also narrowed ideas on how to handle expansion of existing structures and related to ensure we're doing no harm, emphasis on historic preservation sort of elements. We don't want new architectural standards pressuring development towards a teardown. A few areas discussed and where work remains it's being able to better define high quality materials and administration administrative approval or quote alternative compliance or design standard exceptions. Those ideas work in opposition so, for example, we currently get a lot of design standard exception request for restricted materials. We've also been asked to limit how often we do those. Staff under pressure don't always hold that line as well as we'd like. So how do we get, for example, good architectural metal and not cheap corrugated metal? It's not just metal, it's defining the nuance there. More work is needed to understand workable ideas, particularly on another avenue for design standard exceptions, and we'll need to revisit that with Council in the future. And then finally, a note on historic preservation, which is also a recurring theme with questions and interest. That is a large topic with a lot of discussion over the years, and it's out of my scope. But we also want to make sure that nothing we do precludes that from being slotted in in the future. And again, as noted previously, we want to do no harm. And the good news there is the standards focus area is very limited. There's not a lot there that needs to be preserved. So it's not an emergency. Next step, the big next step is to complete the public drafts. The committees aren't operating on a consensus, but we hope to receive some additional critique. At least some more questions, respond to them, receive a general blessing from the groups to do broader outreach. The outreach would involve other groups and partners. It would also include notifying the public, so sending mailers. potentially other means of communication. MTC already did a lot of this when they were working on their plan, but we still feel the best way to engage with residents is just to have a conversation with them. This isn't easy stuff. It's going to seem bigger than it is. We don't think it's a big deal, but people are going to probably react strongly to it. So just talk to them is what we want to be able to do. We would then like to share the feedback received from the public and other stakeholders with the working groups and Council discuss whether additional changes should be made to a formal draft and then whether to enter the public hearing process or not. In terms of timeline, staff hope to be able to share a draft more publicly later this fall with hearings potentially in late spring next year. Just one more note on the screen, and I did put it in the memo, but staff is proposing to package these all together and bring them at one time at the end rather than sort of multiple public hearings over a longer period of time. That was an update. With that, I'm happy to take any questions or directions. I also have some maps, if useful.

Thank you, Brian. Counsel, any questions? Mr. Mayor. Council Chair.

Talk to me about the, if you wouldn't mind going back to the map really quick, just help me understand kind of where the thought process is going with the overlay, but then this like smaller standards focus area. Can you just refresh my memory as to why that area is so much more limited and why it wouldn't just apply to the whole area?

Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman Strader, yes, good question. The blue area, Not exact, but more or less. It's the same as the comp plan designation for all town. We have some civic designations that sort of carve that in a few areas. But the larger area of focus there gets us our alignment with a comprehensive plan. That's important for code changes. It's also representing future possible work and intent to do more. the smaller standards focus area is uh that came out of multiple conversations internally uh with council with other stakeholder groups the it's an expansion of what's currently referred to as a city core that's that's uh codified in title 8 and other areas we also have an agreement with achd for most of that area It's more similar if that's a better way of seeing it than the rest of the area. You have very residential areas west and east of that and even north of sort of Carlton. It goes from more traditional downtown to sort of old houses that are being rehabilitated as businesses. So it's a very different environment. The standards are meant to sort of uh as a way to be more nimble and and faster in the development of this at least the standards themselves the idea was to focus on something more cohesive first at least and get that underway and see how it works before moving on to other areas potentially

I guess the thought would be long-term. So maybe this is the specific downtown core standard, but there's no reason that the same methodology couldn't be expanded into the rest of the overlay area, maybe with a little bit different take, right? Like if it's a residential area, maybe something different is appropriate.

City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers.

council any additional questions uh ashley anything you'd like to add okay right thank you thanks brian okay next item up is london road overpass concrete form liner options mr hood

Thank you, Mr Mayor Members Council. Give me just one second. I had a couple of pictures I'd like to pull up real quick and then. right pay no attention to that right now but it's queued up for when we get there all right uh mr mayor members of council i'm here today to talk to you about a potential partnership with achd and itd regarding the um some of the aesthetic elements around the linda road overpass project so you may have heard uh phase two is under construction now a lot of utility relocates and some trees being removed and trimmed and things up and down Bless you. Between Linder Road and Overland Road, I-84 basically because Phase 1 went all the way to Overland. So they're going to start building the bridge across the interstate and then back north towards Franklin Road. Back in 2001, just a little bit of history, the city did put what I refer to in the memo as seed money to kind of get this project off the schneid and move forward. A lot of that money was intended for design of the project to really kind of get it kick-started and on everyone's radar, especially the transportation agencies. Two years later in 2023, Miranda was here talking to you about some of those aesthetic elements, some of the landscaping and the form liner, which is why I'm circling back with you today. At that time, there were some different areas of that bridge structure and some of the landing areas along the roadway that she brought before you to say, hey, here's some of the customization that we could do as a city if we wanted to partner with the transportation agencies on this project. She generally got some head nods in agreement, but there wasn't an official vote taken or anything like that. three years have since passed and now the contract has been awarded. The bid's been awarded for phase two. ACHD is coming back to the city saying, hey, you're still on board with this partnership, this cost share, right? So I'm here to either reaffirm that or it's not too late. We can sort of back out of that deal. We do have a cost share agreement with ACHD, but I think they're willing to continue to work with us and be a good partner if if we so choose. Cost has changed, though, too. Back in 2023, Miranda got a cost estimate about $84,000 to put this form line or a stamp on the concrete in certain areas, and I'll kind of walk you through what that would have bought us in 2023 dollars here in a minute. Those costs have gone up like everything else practically, about 30%. So I think we've got some options here where if we want to kind of stick to that budget, if you will, we could and do it in lesser places and maybe get some bang for the buck and not put the stamp in some of the other places that maybe are a little more expensive. you know, less visual, could be less impactful to others. And just by the way, we have talked about with other city staff, particularly parks, because art is also part of this project. And so I want to make sure with Cassandra and her team that if You know that that relationship i'm not the right guy for this i'll just say I don't have an eye for that type of thing, but just want to confirm with them. That if we didn't do this stamp that i'm about to show you that it wouldn't detract from the artwork that's also going on in the center medians and things like that and there really was no concern brought up by parks if we so choose not to stamp along the roadway say. um so let me finish kind of the rest of the story so we had two and a half million dollars we spent about 1.7 1.8 million on the design um because design was done we turned the rest of that money back to finance so i have no budget for this project as of right now so if depending on the outcome today my my intent would be to come back to you in the new fiscal year october november sometime in the next couple of months and ask for a budget amendment in whatever dollar amount given direction for today. But right now, I don't have any money on the books for anything here. Okay, so hopefully you all had a chance to look at the memo. That was a pretty high level overview. I thought what might be helpful is to look at some other bridge structures in our area. This is in the middle of some of those. So I thought just kind of looking on either side and even can go a little bit further to Cloverdale pulled up, 10 mile pulled up. So we can kind of look at Meridian Eagle and even just some over changes, not necessarily or overpasses, not necessarily interchanges. So a couple of other things, the way that the memo is structured is abutments or MSC walls are kind of the walls, the major support. If you're on I-84, they parallel the roadway. So I think I've got... So in this example at 10 mile, this would be an abutment or the MSC wall. I'll kind of use those words interchangeably. So it's what you see sort of as you're driving 65, we'll say. Everyone goes to speed limit. Right along interstate, this would be in your periphery or passengers or whatever could really enjoy this, the enhancement here. This is a parapet wall. So you can see at 10 mile, there's a customized form liner here at the parapet wall, as well as the MSC wall or the abutments on the bridge. Two different designs for this project at Linder Road. One side has some wing walls that kind of go back on them. The other one is more natural grade that kind of sloughs off on the side so you don't have as much. So essentially on one side, your wall ends here and it's just dirt that kind of grades out on the other side. And then one side would look more like this again with some kind of support walls. So this form liner would kind of follow that around the curve of one side of the road at Linder Road. So those are two areas that I'll just cut to the punchline where I think we get, if we're going to partner, those are two stamps that I think you're going to get In theory, drivers should be motor should be focused on the road. But in theory, you get more eyes that can take in some of those enhancements in those areas. You know, tens of thousands of cars per day on the interstate there. Some of the other areas that initially were talked about would be the inside of the parapet wall. So just the other side of this. And I'm sorry I didn't pull up my exhibit from the memo. But if you look, there's basically another wall. There's a wall that separates. It's a half wall, I'll just say, that separates bike ped traffic from motorist traffic on either side. So you've got the travel lanes for cars on either side of that outside the curb and gutter. You've got a wall right there as well that's 36 inches tall. You could also stamp that on one or both sides if you wanted to. And then same with the other side of the parapet wall. You could stamp one or both sides of that as well. So those are kind of where the cost estimates come from. And the way that the memos broke out for the cost engineers or that the engineers broke it out was for the bridge structure itself and then the roadway. So you could continue that stamp down, in this case, Linder Road, further down the road until it ties back in at grade with the regular – the rest of the ACHD roadway. So that's kind of how the member structured is abutments, the bridge structure itself, and then roadway. So again, just back to cutting the chase or the punchline, the roadway, I'm not recommending to you all that we pay for any of those form liners, the customization on the roadway per se. So it really would be just on the bridge structure itself and in those couple of places that I mentioned. But if you're so inclined, we could follow that same aesthetic down towards Franklin Road off of the bridge structure itself. You know, one of the options I put in my memo, because it's kind of how the engineers put the exhibits together and the cost proposals, the bridge structure was kind of a package deal where, again, the parapet wall, the cost estimate that you see in the memo is for both sides of that parapet wall. If we wanted to save a little bit more money, again, the inside of it, so it really would be mostly the bicyclists and pedestrians that kind of see the inside of those walls. um we could save a little bit more money and not do that and that that would be my proposal today and it's a little bit different than what the memo says even so that gets us down to about 80 000 which is really darn close to the original not the same impact right we're having to lessen the area that we're putting it in but if you're look just looking at the dollars it's roughly the same cost estimate that was given to the city three years ago um So hopefully that makes some sense. I didn't really get to walk you through some others just to look at that. So I can do that. But if you have questions, I will sit stand for those as well.

Thank you. Council, any initial questions? Any initial thoughts? Would you like me to be the initial thoughts? I'm i'll just be honest i've not since the cost differences came back and when i look at our current where we're at this was compounded by two meetings with two directors today with two potential budget amendments on items that have gone up or um i think are well i'll just say much higher priorities from my perspective i have to question if this is the the best way to spend dollars at this time i know these last a long time but ever since caleb first brought this to my attention about the increased costs that was this was going to be looking at i've done my best to try to use a critical eye as i drive through all the overpasses around here or even in other places and i just came to the realization we're commuting we're not looking you know the the flag on cloverdale is probably the one that really stands out the most the way it as it is um but i go back to when the council well before anyone was on this council and they decided to put the rocks at the meridian road interchange like who even knows that that's the design element that we paid money for and the value that that brings or doesn't bring. I mean, it was a great presentation and, you know, to try to tie everything in, but at the end of the day, there wasn't enough money to do what they wanted to do, or they didn't want to put the money into it to have the impact that probably needed to spend to make it happen. I feel like that's what we're whittling our way down to is just putting a little bit of money in to say we would do something. And I just don't know the ROI on that personally. So i'm i'm i'm in a place where i'm not in support of frankly doing any of the four miners just because I don't think it takes away not having them. And I can't say that I drive by 10 mile and think wow i'm really glad that we put you know the family pictures up there I don't even look at those when i'm driving by anymore, you know when they first were there, I did, but that's my two cents so. But that's why we're here to have the conversation.

Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'm going to just add to that a little bit. If we don't partner, what we'd get is essentially what 10 Mile looks like. This is generally the same design. It may even be the same pattern, Austin, Ashler, Stone. So this would kind of be what you would see, you know, uniform. throughout. So again, a different aesthetic than than the family walking. But this would this would essentially look be what the concrete looks like at at this overpass. So it wouldn't be just a brush, you know, brush concrete, it would have a little bit of a form, you'd still get a form liner, it's just not it wouldn't really wouldn't dry your eye. So here, that's what shader

I kind of subscribe to the idea that as you're driving through it, you really don't pay attention. I don't really think that... this form liner that we would get is bad. Like it seems fine. It's interesting. I'm a little more interested on the experience on the inside of the bridge actually than on the outside of it, just because I feel like that is the part that people would be going at a speed where they could appreciate it more. But I feel like we have the public art in the middle and that's really going to be like more of the focus. Like I don't have a ton of energy around this. where i think you know our financial situation is not um ideal you know i'm okay with it if this is like just this regular liner is what we get i think it'll be okay like that's just my general thought mr mayor that's what i would do i gotta go back to my former career um i'd much rather have our drivers paying attention to other vehicles on the road than

looking at art on our overpass. I honestly couldn't tell you if you showed me pictures of five different overpasses through our valley, which one was which, because I don't pay attention to that because I use those as forms of transportation. So I would definitely support the saving the money on this, getting the stamped one that they're going to, sounds like default to us, instead of spending extra money that, quite frankly, we don't have right now to move forward with this project.

Mr. Mayor?

That's my law.

I concur with everything I'm hearing and Um, as nice as we try to make walls with families and, and, uh, stamps and everything, we still have concrete barriers and guardrails and it's, it's a roadway. So I I'm comfortable keeping it a roadway. I'm not spending the additional funds.

Mr. Mayor.

Councillor Roberts.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor, I can concur with my colleagues, it just seems like we've got a budget that is so tight when I heard that money had gone back into the budget, I was really kind of happy. Mayor Mrakas, Because I know we've cut out some things and safety and just having the overpass I think is an enhancement enough in that area of our Community and to me the wall that they default to works just fine.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor.

Mayor Mrakas, Councilman camera.

I've got a little bit of a slightly different perspective, and I don't disagree with my colleagues. I think the challenge is either do something that blends in or you do something that stands out. And things that stand out cost way more than things that blend in. And I celebrated a great two-week road trip across six states. And you certainly could tell when you were in different communities and those that invested in public art and streetscape recognition, particularly along interstates. And some, I thought did it really, really well. They had a much different transportation funding system than we have. And there's some that did it. Okay. I wouldn't. I think i've drawn the conclusion that doing what comes with the build of the of the overpass probably make sense, and I just you will hear me say this probably a lot over the next few years is that I I want us to find a different funding mechanism for public transportation projects, because if we had dedicated dollars that would allow us the flexibility to do these types of things. We've seen private development build some beautiful monuments and murals that welcome residents into those neighborhoods, those micro communities. I do think Meridian is worth investing in that and creating a sense of identity. I know Meridian's gotten a lot larger, but when the mural or the monument was built at the entrance to the interstate here on Meridian Road, the Meridian sign, That welcome people to our Community created a sense of place a sense of identity and I, I worry that we miss bites of the apple to at least start those conversations on these things that will will never be able to get there with it will ever do that and. You know I hear this i'm sure you've heard a lot, you know we don't want ready to be any town USA, and I think it is important for us to. create a sense of place in our community that welcomes both visitors and residents, and show that this is a community worth investing in. So I don't I don't disagree. I think i'm disappointed that I I probably would draw the same conclusion on this. I just really challenge Mayor, staff, and Council to start exploring other funding mechanisms, so that It's not an if or or situations like we have a budget for this in is this project worth of spending of that particular budget, as opposed to putting this against. park replacements right sidewalk improvements, etc, so I appreciate the work of staff. disappointingly, I agree.

Karen Grove- Mr mayor awesome sure.

You know, I actually agree with a lot of Councilman Kavanagh's comments in the sense that I think it is important. Like, I think that sense of place is important. I just don't feel like that concrete liner versus the one we would get at $80,000 makes that impact to make it a good value. So I think we're all aligned on that. mean one idea and i'll just throw it out there that i i i tried to chat with the parks director about a long time ago is like i think there are visually impactful things we could do that are really different if we wanted to think outside the box like You know, maybe there's a species of wildflower or something that's fairly inexpensive that we could like work with ITD and seed it all along the interstate. You know, you see those like sunflowers that are kind of like a native sunflower. They're very hardy. They're growing there already. If the whole thing was sunflowers, it'd be beautiful. And then that wouldn't cost us a ton. You know, I don't know. I don't think we should give up on it, I guess is my point. Let's not give up on the aesthetics. Let's just try to find where the dollars really make a difference. I don't think it's here personally.

And I would concur. We want to have a space that's unique. And I think this is a good example. I think the stuff up on the railings actually, again, when I think about you go to Oregon, you know, you've got the covered wagon as you come in. You can you can there are some things that do stand out, but I cannot tell you what a four minor looks on like on any redone place throughout this valley, although I look forward to see what Jerome's looks like. They got different color rock. You know, that's kind of exciting through that. But anyways, I hate to have you be the bearer of bad news back to our partners.

Yeah, I'll thank you for the feedback. I'll let ACHD know and you don't have to see me in October. Thank you.

Okay. Council, at the end of our agenda, do I have a motion?

Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Second.

Motion is seconded and adjourned. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. Ayes have it. We are adjourned. Council will call this meeting order, for the record, it is Tuesday September 8 2026 at 6pm will begin tonight's for your city council me with roll call attendance thank you, Mr Mayor Councilman Kevin.

Here also administrator Councilman Whitlock here as well, and little Roberts Councilman overton here.

Here next time up is a pledge of allegiance it all, please rise and join us in the pledge.

pledge of allegiance.

Okay, next up, we didn't have anyone sign up for the community on vacation, so we'll go into adoption of the agenda.

Mr. Mayor.

Councilman Overton.

There are no changes to tonight's agenda. I move that we approve the agenda as posted. Second.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And the agenda is agreed to. So next we'll go on to our proclamation for this evening, which is for National Service Dog Month. If I could have Judy join me at the podium along with anyone else that you'd like to include. I kind of wish we always had more dogs in the audience, to be honest with you. They always bring a certain happiness to any place we go. So I'll go ahead and read a proclamation, then turn it over for any comments that you all have. Whereas in the United States more than 70 million adults and children have a disability and only 16,000 service dogs from accredited training programs exist nationwide and the need is growing. Whereas K9 Companions is a nonprofit organization that enhances the lives of people with disabilities by providing expertly trained service dogs and ongoing support to ensure quality partnerships. And whereas Service Dogs empower people with disabilities to lead life with greater independence by providing best-in-class training, ongoing follow-up services, and a deeply committed community of support. And whereas National Service Dog Month aims to educate our community about the benefits of service dogs and the laws protecting them. And whereas in the 250th year of our nation, the City of Meridian, Idaho strives to be a community in which all citizens and their trained service dogs are embraced. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simpson, hereby proclaim September 2026 as National Service Dog Month. In the city, we're going to encourage all citizens to celebrate service dogs and be respectful of the rights to safe access to our community for the adults, children, and veterans who lead more independent lives because of their assistance. Today is the eighth day of September 2026. So on behalf of the City of Meridian, I want to present this proclamation to you. But first, I invite you up for any comments you may have.

OK. Thank you. i'd like to thank the city of meridian for recognizing september as national service dog month and we have five service dog teams here in the city of meridian three of three of us are here now and we have jane tab here who's got dogs inc And so we just want to make sure that we've got awareness of what service dogs are. We as a team, as a chapter here in Ada County, we're looking to put programs into schools and into businesses to help recognize the need of service dogs, the rights and responsibilities of them. So if anybody has any interest in some of our programs, please contact one of us and we would love love to work with you or you can go on canine.org and see the the organization of canine companions thank you so much for recognizing us thank you Thank you, I really appreciate it.

Council, anything under announcements and recognition? OK. Then Mr. Kirk, you want to sign up under public forum?

Mr. Mayor, yes. First, we have Dave Landry.

Good evening. You'll be recognized for three minutes.

Thank you. I'd like to talk about, uh, spur wing safety and what's happening in the, uh, Chinden area. I have a background of 40 years in flight safety, as well as a member of the NTSB investigation team. What I'm seeing is what the NTSB calls a mousetrap. Um, Chinden is being built and it's overbuilt. The infrastructure cannot handle what's happening. One of the things that we look for is what's called near misses and near misses have increased 150%. They're not recorded by the city. They're not recorded by Idaho Department of Transportation. But what is is accidents and incidents. We had 73 between 23 and today, 42 of those were serious injuries. And why does near misses mean something to the community? Well, what it means is every time we have one, it involves somebody entering, leaving a driveway, golf carts crossing, children walking, construction traffic, delivery carts, and guess what? People using Spur Wing as a cut-through. diversion what is concurred today is diverting today more people use spurwing as a diversion to get to linder to get out to through fairborn than ever before and what we've seen now is vehicles versus child we see vehicle first golf cart we see bicycles and pedestrians now And guess what? We see intersections that have no stop signs. So people that have never been there just walk right on through. The diversion has increased traffic inside of Spur Wing 40-50% over the last year. So in conclusion, near misses in Spur Wing are increasing. And when you have near misses, you have accidents. And when you have accidents, you have catastrophic accidents. What i'm asking today is to relook at your instruction and interferes and children, because what we've created as a mousetrap and it's sprung Thank you, thank you.

And Mr next we have the nice little fever.

Hello, my name is Denise Lefevre, 6706 North Selvia Way. I've had the pleasure of meeting people at ITD. I've met people at ACHD. I've talked to several people over there in the city. And I'm telling you, everybody is really super nice. They really are. But when we come through, it's very clear that ITD says they take care of state facilities. They don't take care of land use. They don't take care of county highways. ACHD is very clear. They've told me multiple times they take care of county highways. They do not take care of land use. When you come to the city, the city tells me they take care of land use. They don't take care of the roads. They use ACHD for that. Somewhere along the line, we have a mess. i've been working i've been working on rock harbor stuff i've been working on crosswalks i've been working on duck alley frontage roads working with people Rock Harbor and the traffic flowing in Rock Harbor a few weeks ago, we had a fire truck that could not enter our neighborhood. It got stuck on Tree Farm Way because of church traffic. That's an issue. I brought that up to the commission at ACHD, testified on it. And then a little while back, we also had an incident where they were getting out of church going along the back way. And next thing you know, there's somebody over there to the side of the road that's off of a bike in the bike lane. I didn't see him hit him, but, you know, they were off their bike in the bike lane and the church was getting out. This is an issue where you go back and you bring it back forth to ACHD and they say, it's not our issue, it's a land issue. you bring it to the city it's a road issue somebody's got to take care of this problem and i'm asking for your help and in particular mayor simpson i'm going to come to you i've already asked that 18 crosswalks be re-striped i know the city has money for it i've talked to john watson about it John first told me, hey, you need to locate the crosswalks. Brian was nice enough to tell me, because my Google didn't show me the history, he was nice enough to tell me, download Google Earth Pro. I did, I located all 18 crosswalks. Now when I go back to him and he sent me a note back, he says, we've got to research because there's a reason they probably weren't active enough, so they didn't repaint them. Enough's enough. You know, at a bare minimum, let's get our crosswalks repainted. There's a lot of issues going on with this cut through traffic. I'm getting tired of going back and forth and no solutions on Rock Harbor Church and the traffic. I presented solutions. I went back and presented a solution again. You can make the service time longer in between the services. A half hour is not enough. You have traffic coming and going at the same time. It's blocking things up. Make it an hour. ACHD told me they can't do that. That's a land use. We're caught in a circle here. We need some help.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, that was all.

Okay. With that, we'll move on to our department reports for the evening. First time up is the Timber Creek Meridian site update. Mr. Lake, we invite you up.

Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Caleb Lakey, 16933 Northside Boulevard, Napa, Idaho. Here this evening at request representing Timber Creek Recycling to provide a brief update on our current status on our transition plan as we transition out of our Meridian facility and fully into our Napa facility. The good news is we are on track to do so. That's the highlight. But let me show you a few of those highlights. First off, one thing we discussed, it was at the end of 2024 when we last were in front of you. There was some concern about gravel crushing. We ceased gravel crushing. There was a pile resulted from that crushing activity. What I'm showing you here is what's left of that pile. The pile on the left is our larger material we reserved a little bit just for winter operations and track out material. material on the right is the three-quarter and you can see the piles greatly diminished so we're on track to use all that product or sell all that product Another photo I wanted to show you, and just for orientation, the tree I've circled there in the back is the corner of Columbia, or excuse me, yes, Columbia and Lake Locust Grove. So you're looking south-southeast of this picture. But really what's most important is the orange line I've put on there. Typically and historically, you'd have approximately 10 rows of compost in that facility. In that location, you can see the area is basically empty. There's a few stockpiles there of material we're using as feedstocks. And actually some of those piles in the back are crossed off of our composting pad. They're actually finished products. So I just want to show that a compost yard that previously was full of compost now has a lot of vacancy in it. um specific to that we talked a lot about our cheese wise waste waste activated sludge diversion uh remind the count members the council of mayor that uh waste activated sludge is is really a process the result of a process you qualify that by what kind of material you're putting into it so we are handling a cheese waste activated sludge um and we've diverted as we committed to an inter-transition plan quarterly since the beginning of 26 50 of that and you can see our trend line as you go through quarter one quarter two 45 percent in meridian 56 in nampa and then q3 is not done yet so i didn't show that cumulatively but you can see that q3 july through august is on track to keep with that trend line and we continue to make efforts to continue with that trend line through the end of the year the biggest part of that is going to be our new construction in nampa This is a picture of our second ASP pad system. So you may recall from our last conversation, each pad is really two pads. We had two pads previously. We're building another pad, but there's two sides to it. So we call it pad three and four, the third and fourth blower system. These are well under construction, which you can see here is the air ducting system that goes underneath the concrete pad with the sparges to blow the air up into the compost. We're on track to be pouring concrete into this month, first part of next month, and then have that operational by the end of the year. At that point, Take take full take full delivery of the cheese was material, you know, an application. In accordance with the transition plan and then move into our final phase of our transition plan with with a city, which is to sell the remaining product and cease our composting operations in South meridian. Speaking of our plan, this is just a snip from our plan. This is phase three. We're in phase three right now to be completed by the end of December. You can see that we continue with ongoing odor monitoring. There have been a few odor complaints or odor concerns raised. We've responded to those in accordance with our operational plan like we always have, done an investigation or an odor complaint form. We communicated that with both DEQ uh and your code enforcement officers of what we've seen uh i can say there's been no consistent overarching um nuisance odor that's been ongoing i've been spot or time to say right before we're able to and that's

And that account.

Last time I believe we had a presentation, there was some discussion regarding more mitigation with the odor. You were trying something with lime. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And how did that work? Is it working? Is it in progress?

Yep. Thank you, Councilman. Great question. Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor. We did find success with the lime. Where we did not find success was the cheese factory was unable to install a lime dosing machine, as we had discussed. Because of that, we went ahead and bought bulk lime, and we manually dosed the loads coming in. So we have recorded the pH of the load coming in, dosed it with lime accordingly, and then monitored the pH as a result of that. It has had effect on the pH as it was prescribed to do. I can't quantitatively tell you that it's... I already said it hasn't eliminated the odor. We still had some odor issues, but it definitely has changed the odor from reports from the staff on site that can tell a difference. So unfortunately, we were not as successful with that as we had hoped to be on a mass scale. We did our best to make up for that on our own without uh being able to do at the factory on site what we lost by that was the benefit to having it done at the facility was it'd be mixed when it got to us when it comes to us in bulk we're able to add lime and it's mixed in our process but not as effective and also the lime takes a little bit of time to neutralize some of the odor and so doesn't have much time to neutralize it so again that's that's where we're at but i appreciate the question because that's correct we spent quite a bit of time talking about that

You touched on kind of your proactive steps that you're taking to address odor. They also acknowledge, hey, there's been some times where you've had to respond to noise complaints. What are those reactive measures that occur once you receive an odor complaint from a resident, from the city, from somebody? What are the steps that your operations take to address that?

Sure. Councilman, members of the council, Mr. Mayor, most odor complaints come to me directly if they have my direct line. I've gotten odor complaints pretty much all times of the day and night. I notify the crew at the earliest convenience, usually the next morning, of, hey, we had an issue, something came in last night, or if it's during the day, we call them right then. The site lead stops what they're doing, and they take the two- or three-man crew on site. They'll go out, and they'll all case the facility, looking for any odor they can find. um sometimes they can come across something that maybe wasn't covered correctly or mixed correctly and they can address it right there other times they come back and say I simply can't find it I don't know what what they might be smelling I I don't know I can't smell it we're we're aware that um We don't want to discount anyone else's observation. And sometimes if you're working there and you're in the middle of it, you may not be able to smell it. So in the cases I've gone over, because I work in Nampa, I'll go over as kind of a fresh nose, so to speak, and do my own drive-through. But whenever we have an issue like that, we document that on an odor complaint form, which we do weekly proactively, but we do an additional documentation. And then I share that with DEQ and with your code enforcement of, hey, we had this come up, and here's our report on what we found.

Mr. Mayor, follow up. What I heard was kind of more of a documentation reporting process. I think you're judging something that's really important, right? I walk into my teenager's room and say, man, your room stinks. He goes, no, I can't smell. My room smells fine, right? It's subjective, but to your point, if you're in that space, you become conditioned to it. And if a resident or a name, somebody is experiencing that and they reach out to you, What are the steps? I guess I don't want to take that. I'm hearing that you just document report it. But what are those? What are those reactive measures that you take to address it?

Okay, thank you for the clarification. So let me give you an example. I think maybe to illustrate this one of our recent investigations, we found that some of our capping material wasn't uh it wasn't wet so if we keep our cabin material moist it acts as a biofilter to eliminate some of the odor we determined upon an investigation that some of it was too dry had dried out it's difficult to keep it wet especially in the middle of summer because it dries out very quickly you have you have compost that's already cooking it above 130 degrees itself it's giving off heat and you have the sun being down on it they're continuously running that water truck But we found that and we talked to the crew about that. And one of the changes we made to your question, Councilman, is we said, hey, we want you to pre-wet this material. Don't wait to put it on and then the next day come back and try and wet it down or wet it down before you do the next turn. We want you to pre-wet it. Now, the root cause of that was the crew was on the impression that because some of the material was coming in wet from the factory, They didn't want to add any more moisture. They didn't want to create a problem where the mature was leaching out the bottom of the pile. So they were reducing the water on the top. But once we explained that, hey, without the water on the top, we're going to have an odor issue. You need to address the water on the top. We made that change or reiterated that procedure with them to where now we're saying, hey, pre-wet the mulch and then put the mulch on top of the compost. Does that answer your question, Councilman?

It does, but maybe, Mr. Mayor, one additional one. Mr. Kenner. Mr. Lakey, if I heard your testimony correct, you haven't received any complaints for dust that you're aware of?

That's correct. I have not received any complaints for dust. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor.

Councilman Willock.

Mr. Lakey, thanks for being here and for the update. I think when we set the timeline, part of it was weather dependent. In order to do this transition, the middle of the winter wasn't an ideal time. With the mild weather, Are you ahead of schedule? Tell me where you are.

So Mr. Councilman and members of the council, Mr. Mayor, we're on schedule. We're not ahead of schedule. We're contingent upon the construction in Nampa. That's our big hinge point. As soon as that construction is complete, we will start transitioning all we can into Nampa. We're ready to go there besides finishing that floor on that pad. So it will... part you're exactly right part of our discussion was the winter this upcoming winter will influence that as well once we cease accepting material come in december if things go well we can get out there sooner we'll get as much out as we can pretty much our generic plan i should say is that as soon as we stop receiving materials in meridian it's how much can we get out and where is it going to go as i mentioned earlier trying to forecast okay how much do we need to keep here for local customers going to want it versus our broader customer base it doesn't really care or customers will be coming out of out of nampa um we don't have 100 feel on that yet we're trying to make some educated decisions based on what we know about our customer base but i don't see us accelerating much beyond what we committed to counseling cancel any additional questions okay

Thank you. Appreciate the update.

No problem. Thank you.

Okay. With that, we'll move on to item three.

Mr. May.

Councilwoman Roberts.

Sorry about that. I was wondering if we could have code enforcement. I just had a question to see if they don't mind coming up.

So are these the rebuttal witnesses from a few good men, O'Malley and Rodriguez, that are...

Sorry.

Sorry.

Hello, I thank you for being here, I was just curious if you guys had any feedback, and I know you've been taking reports and getting quarterly. Sure, so since.

October of 2024, which is kind of when a lot of this kicked off. I personally have been on the site 11 times. I believe seven of those at this point have been our quarterly check-ins with some extra check-ins in the meantime to make sure things are going well. All of the metrics have been met on time. I typically communicate ahead of time. um to make sure hey this is our date we're going to be out here um and then I get the numbers of the Waz River diversion from um from Caleb usually um so we review those when I go out there we ensure that no new material that wasn't supposed to be delivered is delivered in this case the concrete they were supposed to be um ceasing receiving they did not receive any past the point they were supposed to in addition they ground it all within the time frame And at this point, they are on track as far as we are concerned. Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional questions? All right. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to item three, which is discussion regarding the property transfer from MDC. Mr. Neary.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. What you have in your packet or on the agenda is a transfer agreement that we have prepared with council from MDC. This is to transfer a property that they currently own, which is the parking lot that is adjacent to the VRT Compass Building. To transfer that asset to the city, as most of, you know, and for the public's. This particular portion of the MDC or renewal area is going to be sunsetting with the current. Expiration at the end of this year, so this is anticipation of that is moving that asset to the city. Now there is a potential for a future. Opportunity there, this is really just to move the property to the city at this point. If there are future opportunities, NBC would like to have at least some feedback and some input in that process as that goes forward. And this allows for that. They are planning on taking this up tomorrow, but this is really a 1st impression for you folks on the record to discuss and see if we want to keep moving forward with this agreement and. Coordinate this transaction to get this done by the end of the year.

Thank you. Council, any questions regarding the proposed transfer agreement? Okay. Well, I think you can report that back to their council so they can, when it comes back to officially to us, that they think they'll know what they'll get. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move on to our public hearings for this evening. First item up is a public hearing for Butte-Fence, H. 2025-0060. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. And you're not Nick.

mayor members of the council i am not nick this evening but the applicant is requesting continuance of that application again they're working with staff on some da provisions and because there's a statutory limitation in our udc that requires you guys to act on planning and zoning commission recommendations within 70 days we couldn't get them to the date that they wanted to go on so we've asked them to keep it on this date ask for your continuous this evening and then Absolutely, until that October hearing date, and then we should be ready to go and share that information with you in accordance with UDC standards.

Okay. Council, any questions for staff?

Mr. Mayor?

Councilman Cavanaugh.

Staff, I just, you've noticed this is a public hearing. I don't know if there's anybody that's here that planned to testify this evening. Okay.

Mayor Mrakas, Oh, and I think that's the question is there any reason we would not want to take any comments from the applicant and anyone from the test public this time.

Mayor Mrakas, There's not a lot of a lot of the developers live out in that area, so we didn't have a lot of public testimony on this, so I don't anticipate anyone wanting to testify in that item this evening.

Mayor Mrakas, Is there anybody that came to see me that was playing a test sign this item. Mayor Mrakas, Okay, then, with that entertain a motion. Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor. Councilman overton.

Mayor Mrakas, move that we continue the public hearing for butte fence H 2025 dash 0060 until the date of October 20 2026.

I have a motion and a second to continue this public hearing. Is there a discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. You guys have it. And this item is continued. Next item up is item five, a public hearing for Public Works proposed fiscal year 2027, water and sewer rate increase. I'll turn this over to Director Bakken. Is it Bakken or Bacon? I haven't asked.

It's Bakken. Close. I'm telling everybody it's like back in the day.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah. It's okay. I'm still getting used to it myself. So it's awesome. Well, thank you, Council and Mayor. This is, you've already seen these, but these are the proposed FY27 water and sewer rates. Um, just a quick presentation, um, for anyone that didn't see him the 1st time, but for the average customer, it equates to about a 4.2% increase, or about a 2 dollars and 71 cents per month increase. Um, if approved, these would go effective October 1. And I think something important to note is even with this proposed increase, we still remain the lowest rates in the Treasure Valley, which is, I think, something to be really proud of. And we don't take these rate increases lightly, knowing that this increase impacts all residents of Meridian and did want to make sure to touch on our low income assistance program. It's called the Meridian Cares program, and it offers residents that qualify up to $100 per year on the payment of water, sewer, and garbage bills. And so if anybody is interested in that, it's administered through LAIDA. And so you call them and all of the qualifications and paperwork to receive aid is administered through their program. And we see about 100 to 120 participants in this program each year. So it is important for our residents. And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay, appreciate it, this is a public hearing is working one sign up to provide testimony to marry nobody signed up for this Okay, if is there anybody present who would like to provide comments on this rate. Water and sewer rate increase for fiscal year 2027 so you can come forward or use the raise your hand feature online. See no one coming forward and no one raising their hand.

There's no more public comment I move we close the public hearing on the public works proposed fiscal year 2027 water and sewer rate increase second have a motion second to close above hearing is there a discussion.

If not on favor signify by saying aye aye those name yes have the public is closed next time up is item 6 was a which is resolution number 26 that's 2596 mayor has been a lot.

I would move that we approve agenda item number 6 resolution number 262596 regarding the Meridian Public Works Department fees. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve resolution number 26-2596. Is there discussion? No. Councilmember Cavanaugh.

I just want to commend Director Bakken and her team. Public Works is a department that not a lot of people think about unless things go wrong and you continue to operate an exceptional department and To your point about being able to offer these rates at the lowest in the valley is a celebration to itself. But I also want to commend you and your team because every time one of the members of our community, whether it's a member of the development community or a citizen in need, reaches out to your department, they're treated with kindness and respect and really a willingness to collaborate and understand. And again, I don't think that also happens by accident. So I just want to thank you for your exceptional work. Appreciate it. And the entire team as well.

Thank you. Any additional comments? If not, call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor Kavanagh. Aye. Streeter. Whitlock. Aye. Little-Roberts. Overton.

Aye. All rise. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. Next item up is public hearing. Do we have a number? H2025-0030, continue from July 20, 2026 for Cherry Blossom East subdivision. We'll continue this public hearing with any staff comments.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. This project was continued in order for the applicant and the two neighbors to the south to work on a cross access easement agreement for a shared driveway between the properties that would provide access for emergency vehicles and trash service to the properties to the south and allow cost sharing for the driveway maintenance. Last I heard, there hadn't been an agreement reached, but I'll let the applicant speak to that tonight, just in case there's something that's occurred since I spoke with them. We have received a couple written letters of testimony since the last hearing, and I'll just kind of go through a summary of that. On June 10 we received a letter from Kimberly lock Allah with an attached email from the Community manager of cherry blossom homeowners association. continued concern that the irrigation pump system isn't sufficient to provide adequate pressure for the existing cherry blossom subdivision. and additional lots shouldn't be added until the deficiencies are addressed the existing pump was shutting off because too many homes were watering at the same time. To help balance the system, the homeowners have had to come up with an alternate irrigation schedule of odd and even watering days, limitation on the hours and the days per week they can water. She requested this issue be resolved prior to the July 28th hearing. She did provide an update today that she hasn't received any acknowledgement of their concerns, nor have they received any documentation that any of the items of concern have been addressed. no written testimony or documentation excuse me on the pump maintenance has been received the pump and vault and wear still has not been examined to ensure it's not too shallow the pump is still running 24 7 and the run dry system still doesn't appear to be functioning as it was designed they still have concerns that these items will not be addressed and the cost of these items will end up falling on the homeowners um The complete letters are in the public project file on that she was not able to attend the hearing tonight, so she asked me to speak with you about that, and then we did receive a letter of testimony. A corrected version actually late today from Margie Williams. She had submitted photos of her deteriorating driveway and a bid for the cost of repair and replacement in order for it to be in condition that will support additional traffic if the driveway is shared. So the applicant is here tonight to present. Thank you.

Thank you. Council, any questions for staff?

Mr. Mayor.

Councilman Cameron.

You got a little ahead of me. I apologize. Before we jumped into this application, I was absent on July 28th when this was continued, but I did have a chance to go through and watch the hearing, review the minutes, the updated materials. Unless anyone has any concern, I do plan to participate in tonight's discussion.

Thank you. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward?

Mr Mayor, members of Council, Jeff Wardle, my address is 251 East Front Suite 310 in Boise. Here tonight on behalf of the applicant and John Brecken, who will handle the technical issues, is here. As staff indicated, we have and we appreciate the contains what we got last time uh counsel for the neighbors and myself have met multiple times and had multiple conversations and unfortunately this is a situation where i just the the parties are not able to come to an agreement at this time on sharing access um we're certainly amenable to granting a unilateral access easement if in fact there was something reciprocal, but our concern just is that What has been proposed will just result in future conflict and future trespass that can't be resolved. And so, John will address what was presented previously, but we're back in front of you tonight with a request that you approve this application with a a fence at the property line that would enable a 20-foot-wide drive access serving this property, which is reduced at 18 feet due to the placement of the utility poles up front. And John can address the remaining utility and access issues, and I can come back up for questions when you have it on those.

John Brecken, 6661 North Glenwood Street. I have brought my presentation from previous for reference, but I think the main item I wanted to speak to tonight was the irrigation item that Sonya brought up, and I have some additional calculations and gone back and double-checked the water flow, the water rights and the ditches and so forth. There is plenty of water in the ditches that are adjacent, and the developer, Doug Geo, has been out there personally trying to address the issue there was a an email that he sent back july 28th that addressed what he found at that time and then we have as part of this submittal an updated design for that pump station that would make additional improvements to enlarge the wet well and allow for the gravity irrigation to circulate around and connect to the ditch to the north. Anyway, I have that with me as well. I stand for questions.

Thank you. Council questions? Council Chair?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Do we have those items in the record? I went through the file, but I do not recall seeing the updated calculations and pump house materials.

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Strader, we should have the new design drawings that were submitted as part of the original packet. I don't know that the, that the calculations are in there, but the, and then, and I know Sonia has the letter that was sent on July 28th.

Mr. Mayor. Could you, could you just maybe explain what the calculations show then just so we can understand, um,

You bet. So the water rights are such that they include the original cherry blossom property to the west, which is 10.74 acres and one miner's inch, which is 9 GPM per acre. Wonderful. And then there's water rights to the ditch that flows through the property to the north, and that's an additional 60 inches of water. And so within the ditch that flows by, there's... 544 gallons per minute flowing through that ditch. The demand for the overall development is peak demand during July would be 64 gallons per minute. And the pump station is designed at 80 gallons per minute. So there's plenty of water there and capacity for the pump. It's the connection to the ditch that is faulty and needs to be improved so that we can get the water out of the ditch and into the wet well for the pump. And then I also, as part of this new design, I'm recommending that the wet well be enlarged for the capacity so that it will not run dry. And that was submitted in the construction drawings as part of the packet. So if those improvements are made, everything should work just great.

Mr. Mayor. Council Chair.

The question for our staff, and I realize we're not all necessarily like engineers that are studying the capacity of the pump and et cetera, but have we had an opportunity to somewhat verify that work that was done with some sort of, because I saw there was a proposed condition of approval, but it's very broad. And I guess my concern is whether or not this solution is adequate. and just a general comment like this thing if we approve it's going to be a mess it's going to be a mess because you guys can't get on the same page and we're going to have a there's going to be a wall in the middle of a driveway it's just an absolute nightmare so but on the pump piece specifically i was just curious if staff had any opinion at this point about the adequacy of the applicant's uh solution do we have an expert internally that might have an opinion

Mayor, members of the Council, we don't. So we have no one that's going to verify that. As you know, we have an ordinance that requires pressurized irrigation systems. At the end, when the system has been certified, we actually get a certified letter from the engineer that prepared the plan saying that it's been built to meet the standards and the specs. So it's really on the design professional. to prove to us that they've designed it appropriately at the end of the process. And then we sign off on the subdivision improvement. So that would be the same case here. If this is approved this evening, they'll get their plans recertified, re-looked at with our land development team and they'll go with the irrigation district. They'll say, yep, no, good. They'll have to verify it. We'll get that certification. It'll be part of the public record. And then if it becomes an issue, The city will hear about it, or we'll send them to the irrigation district to get it figured out. But certainly the issue that you're hearing this evening is nothing new. We hear it quite a bit from many different subdivisions. I know my subdivision that I live in. Same thing, our irrigation system is owned by Nampa Meridian, but when everyone turns on the water at the same time, you lose water pressure and therefore your heads don't cover your lawn and your yard starts burning up. So again, it's the same thing. My HOA communicates out saying, please water on every other day or water at different times of the day. So you make sure that there's adequate pressure for everyone using the system. I know it isn't an easy answer. It puts us in a... a difficult predicament, but that's the system that we have built and certainly can relate to it.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Hasmuth. Bill, if I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, this is not a Nampa Meridian Irrigation District well. This is a private well.

Mayor, members of the council, yes, there's a lot of nuances to irrigation in our area. So we have these larger waterways that are controlled by these bigger irrigation districts, and then there's sub-lateral users or smaller groups that we may not know exist out there. John knows the history better than I do, so I don't know who's controlling it or if it is. And certainly the developer can choose to have the irrigation district own it or the HOA own it. and that's typically noted on the recorded plat who's to own and maintain that so i i'm this one i'm not sure if it is part of an ampermanian system or it's somebody else so it looks like john's shaking his nose his head no that it isn't and so it may be a ditch writer association or something out there but i'll let him at least give you some feedback on who's maintaining it or who whose jurisdiction it lies within

That's where members of the council it's it's a user ditch and so the head gate is further upstream and you may be aware of the irrigation districts opinion is once it leaves the head gate. It's not their problem. It's downstream and that's the situation on this. So this is a. where we're at is private ownership as a user ditch and so then we are to abide by state law to continue uh water rights to the users mr mayor follow up councilman i guess to john and to bill then okay so um i'm i'm right in the line i believe with what councilwoman straighter just said i fear that this is going to be a train wreck

that if we approve this application, there's still a good chance that this whole current ditch system could fail. Where does that leave this application if this whole system fails, but councils approve this?

Well, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, I think maybe to add what Bill was saying, I mean, the process as we submit these plans, land development will review them and double check the design. And then it does need to be installed per the plans, along with all the other improvements. So as far as the pump station goes, it will need to be properly installed.

Mayor and Council, I think the There's two ways you can skin this cat. One is, if it fails, the HOA's got to fix it once it gets turned over to them because the code requires that they provide a pressurized irrigation system. And then part two of that is they need to provide a secondary source if the irrigation system fails, which is typically a well or domestic water. The other part I think Sonya laid out, and I know this project has been going on for quite a while, but I do recall, at least if memory serves me correctly, the developer in this case is trying to utilize an existing system that he built with the first phase. It's certainly within your purview for him to design his own to serve these three lots. Um, that's still within your purview and that was something I think we brought up in the staff report for you to take under consideration. So, again, there may be issues with the current system, but there's also an ability for the council to say. You can build your own and be independent from this other. entity but again hopefully this lot more likely this property does share the same user ditch and water right so it's either way it's all coming out of the same ditch the same water is coming from the same place so i don't know if that gets you anywhere but essentially um i think if i'm understanding john correctly i don't know if the system is failing i think it's like i said a lot of times it's just it seems to be a so and maybe people are watering all at the same time taking resources from one another rather than trying to stagger the times they run their watering and that that's the difficult part is a lot a lot of times we hear that subdivisions call us up and people like to water every day and it's like you don't you don't need to water every day but a lot of times people do and they flood out their crawl spaces so again it's just proper education and understanding that this is a valuable resource and we all need to share but i don't know how to solve that issue it's we hear it all the time in our department about AI systems water we'll have HOA saying the developer I can't water my yard's burning up we need more water and we're just like it's it's really not a city issue unfortunately

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, is maybe the other thing to clarify when I said earlier that part of the fix here is to enlarge the wet well. The wet well that was originally designed and installed was based on that watering schedule so that people would water every other day. and and and so based on things that have occurred since then i would agree that people aren't abiding by the by the schedule and as such i'm suggesting in this design that we oversize the wet well to accommodate them because we do have the water available it's it's it's not going to pose a problem to have a larger wet well and it will only fix this issue with with over watering so the pump itself is properly sized it's just getting the water in there so that it can run when it's

asked to by whoever's running their irrigation system mr mayor that's an option i am not a well expert by any shape or means the comments you're making about an oversized wet well is that already captured in our da provisions or is that new information that would have to be added if this application was to be voted for approval

Mayor Mrakas, yeah mayor members of the Council, I think you would want to include that in your conditions of approval that they they upgrade irrigation system. Mayor Mrakas, and get that verified, so that it does have the bigger what well would be my recommendation.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor.

Mayor Mrakas, that's one little Roberts.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor. Okay, if I can get all of this out regarding water, because this is going to go back to the original allotment. Can you upgrade the current system with a larger wet well under your water allotment? Because I know that ditch, if I remember right, the ditch feeds like the neighbors surrounding with the older homes that were very concerned with the original flat that they maintained their water so we've got to look out for everybody's water because water is gold in the state of Idaho.

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Little, Roberts, yes, the upsizing of the wet well, well, the upsizing of the wet well is not going to affect Uh, the, uh, the neighbors, what it does is it, it gives a, a larger, um, Oh, a larger, um, container, uh, to hold water. So the, the, the water, I mean, the, the water's usage is still limited by the pump. Because it's only designed to deliver so much water. And so it's kind of a calculation of time and volume. And so trying to think of an analogy, but if you could have as big of a cistern as you wanted, but if you've only got Mayor Mrakas, A small hose delivering that water, then it's only going to come out at a certain rate, so thank you.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor custom share. so are you open to a condition of approval that you as an applicant will design and install your own separate irrigation system for these lots i'd like to understand your position there before we get to the wall and everything yeah mr mayor councilman straighter uh we're certainly open to that um i i um

Dave Kuntz, I don't I don't see the value in that personally. Dave Kuntz, it's. Dave Kuntz, very redundant. Dave Kuntz, Based on everything else that we've got going on there. Dave Kuntz, I only have those three lots, in addition to the larger parcel so it's it's a very small percentage of the overall design. Dave Kuntz, But yes, to answer your question that.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr Mayor.

Mayor Mrakas, yeah and I understand your comment it's just that, based on the other comments received it just feels like this is unless you're operating your own system, this is just like a setup for a real nightmare around the water itself. So talk to me about if we were really, I think, hoping you guys would come to a resolution. What is this going to look like with a wall in the middle of the driveway? How's it going to function? Talk to me about emergency turnaround and remind me what that's all going to look like with the great wall here in between.

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Schroeder, I'm going to see if I can forward here to a site plan that will graphically depict that. Oops. This is probably... As good as anything, so the. What we're proposing there with with the common drive. Yeah, if we if we do a wall or fence, it would be on that South. Property line and. At what we have designed is still meets access requirements for lots to the north, as well as adequate turnaround for emergency services and and trash pickup. For the lots to the north. Lots to the south. Will continue to have the the driveways that that they already have, and I would expect that trash pickup will require rolling the containers out to fourth street.

Mr. Mayor.

That's what I'm saying. In the meetings with your council and their council, was it close? Was it like there's just a sticking point? Or is it like we just cannot? I mean, obviously, this is multiple tries here. So I just want to understand, did it come close and there's hope here?

Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I appreciate the work that their council has done. But I think what is lost in this whole thing is that their property ostensibly is served by a 20-foot wide access drive that was not ever constructed to 20 feet in width. So to the extent that they've been taking access, they've been trespassing. Now, it is what it is. And we have proposed a variety of things, including taking responsibility. We would make some additional improvements. took the position that was communicated to us that they wanted us to remove a portion of their existing drive, the existing concrete that's there, and make improvements that just did not make much sense. So we're still open to discussions, but I take umbrage a little bit, Council Member Strader, with the notion that it's a wall when property owners all over this state are entitled to fence their property at the property line. So it's not an affront. It's not intended to be offensive. But if we can't reach an agreement about common access, then there has to be something to keep the Amazon truck from driving from our property onto theirs. There has to be something to keep our individuals from turning around in their driveways because that's the concern. So we'll construct a fence. I do think it would be better, it would be better for everybody if we had a common 30 plus foot wide common drive that served everybody. But the struggle that we had is, And I'm not here to slam or mischaracterize, but there's this notion that, well, why are we having to give up something? Well, you're not, we're trying to be cooperative. And the reality is you have an existing 11 foot wide drive, not a 20 foot wide drive, it's platted at 20 feet out to the street, but it's only constructed to 11 feet. So to the extent that you've needed more access for garbage, that you've needed more access for these other things, these properties to the south, have utilized this property for that. And so, yes, I mean, it's appropriate to be concerned. It's appropriate to have a resolution. I'd be more than willing to grant a unilateral cross-easement that they can cross onto our property, but what's to keep our clients from being sued for trespass if one of their guests crosses the line. If we don't have an agreement, unfortunately, the best possible solution is for the properties to fundamentally remain as they are, but with a recognition that the property here to the north has the right to enclose its boundaries and be developed consistent with your code.

Mr. Mayor.

Councilor Schroeder.

i get what you're saying but at the same time this is like to me this doesn't look workable like i'm concerned about and i understand um planning and the fire department gave this waiver using basically the curb to count toward the 20 feet but it just it feels to me like a bit absurd that we're going to have this common driveway and

garbage trucks we've already admitted won't be able to get through there i disagree council member straighter i disagree i disagree your standard and our people have worked with public works and with fire and with the the police department to address what what is required but if you're going to dismiss our attempt to solve this problem under your code then we want code enforcement out enforcing this as to everybody. Because why did we allow building permits to be issued to residences that are on an 11-foot-wide drive? And I guess the other thing is, Councilmember Strader, these are hard things. Infill is always hard. But we're not here asking to throw up another 300 houses off of Ustick. We're here saying, let's get three more lots on this property because it's consistent with your comp plan, it's consistent with your code. And that's where when we talk about platting of property and we talk about subdividing, The fact of the matter is it's not really discretionary. Any property owner that can satisfy the specific requirements of your code has an absolute right to have their property divided in accordance with that code. So whether we like the aesthetics or not, impose the condition that we have to ensure that our water meets the requirements. But again, we're on the same ditch that the other 43 lots were as well. And we have a water right, just as they do. And we will work through it. We're not looking to encroach upon our neighbors to the South's property. But we're here in part because the neighbors to the south have benefited from not having the northern property enclosed. And an enclosure of a minimal kind to ensure that everybody knows where the property boundary is, if we can't reach an easement agreement, is the only solution.

Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Roberts.

Sorry, you lost me when you referred to something as an 11-foot drive. It says they have 18 feet.

So, Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Little-Roberts, as we look here, you see the properties to the south, okay? And this dimension right here, that we're proposing to improve is 20 feet. They have a platted lot that stubs out at 20 feet, but they only improved 11 feet of that. There is this portion down here that could be widened for their benefit and use. We don't think that's a good use of things, but I also don't think it's a good use to rip out existing improvements that are there, especially where there hasn't been a willingness to share the cost of maintenance. So what I'm struggling with, Councilmember Little-Roberts, is there's this notion that we're eliminating their access, but the fact of the matter is we're not. Their access will be exactly what it has been that their legal right has been, which is essentially the 11 to 12 foot wide drive that they built. But if the concern here is about these three lots on an interior infill site. And I would posit that interior infill sites are what we ought to be encouraging because we already have the infrastructure. We've already invested. That's where we already are. But if we're going to object to these three lots and say that this is a failure, then where were we when building permits were pulled on these two interior lots to the south? So. Councilmember Roberts, that's the thing is that what you see there in the light white below is what is their drive. And it's my understanding that it's concrete. And what we're talking about is installing a 20 foot wide, which is 18 feet plus two for the rolled curb. And that's only because they relocated a power pole into our easement. That's why it's 18 and two. It's not the full 20 is because a power pole was, there was a power pole at the, at the north east corner of fourth and camellia that sat in the, in the right away in the intersection. And when Idaho power moved that back onto the lot inside the sidewalk, they then installed a new one across the street so that you didn't have as long of a run. And the consequence of that, that's what short narrowed the 20, the 20 feet. So. I, I You know, I do things to fix them. I don't come here to try to cause problems and I don't try to abuse neighbors. And I appreciate Ms. Germain's work because she and I, we work on the same floor. We see each other all the time. We have talked about this at least half a dozen times in the garage, on the way to the restroom, in each of our conference rooms, on the telephone. But I just can't get there. And like I said, John and I had talked about it, more than willing to grant a springing easement in the future if there was some acquiescence to allow access, shared cross-access. But it can't be, and Council Member Streeter, to your point, what was the objection? The response we kept getting is fine, we'll give you five feet. Well, five feet doesn't solve the problem because we're talking about the long-term impact of vehicles using, and the inherent movement is I'm gonna come in on the right side, I'm going to turn around in our little Snoopy head there or back out. And when I come back, I'm going to stay to the right because we've all gone to driver's ed and we've all been taught. And that's what we're going to do. But a five foot wide easement doesn't accomplish that. It's gotta be the entire width of. It's gotta be the entire width of the travel lane on both sides.

Mr. Mayor that's been over 10.

So I'm going to make you walk through this one. I see the drive aisle as you've described it. I see the 20 foot drive aisle. I see the fact that at one point it narrows down to 18 feet where the pole is. And just to be completely clear on the south side of that 20 foot drive lane, they currently have 11 feet that they're using for access.

Correct. Except, let me clarify. If we can look here, you see this building here. Are we seeing my cursor? Yes. Okay. So the property line is right there. So there's actually a 20-foot wide area that goes all the way out, but they only improved the northern 11 feet.

Mayor Mrakas, This mayor follow up that's where that's where i'm going so with your explanation to counsel woman little Roberts, what I see is you are going to develop a drive is 20 feet, but they have access to also develop a drive is 20 feet correct with a fence in the middle that we don't really need, but we just can't seem to get past correct. Mayor Mrakas, Thank you, thank you.

Maybe to follow up with one, when you're looking for the unilateral easement, were you only looking for the 11 developed feet or the full 20 feet that would, in theory,

uh mr mayor members of council we have no desire to see them have to make any additional improvement so it's for 11 feet but if they were to grant that for whatever the dry well is and i think i think there has been some concern because i measure it one way and look at it and it probably needs to be surveyed because ideally that would be what we do is we do a survey and we capture all of it uh not looking to require them to build the 20 feet

but it's got to be what the travel way is and it can't just be some arbitrary five feet on either side of the property line that's unworkable and so look the easement request was just over what was currently concreted correct okay okay council any additional questions for the applicant thank you thank you it's correct we have everyone set up on this item

I'm Mr. Mayor. Yes. First, Abigail Jermaine.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. For the record, Abby Germain with Elamin Burke, 251 East Front Street, Boise, Idaho, 83702. Excuse me. I'm here on behalf of my clients, Justin and Margie Williams. They are the property owner to the south of the proposed development. I would agree completely with council's representation that we have worked diligently to try and find a resolution to this. As it relates to the cross access agreement, we have not been able to reach a resolution. I would like to just correct two statements that were made. I believe Council said that the property owners would not be willing to share in the cost of maintenance. My clients have agreed that if this improvement was made and a cross-access agreement was reached, they would take responsibility for their cost of the south side of the cross-access easement. So I just want to clarify that that's not one of the sticking points. I would also just remind the council that this application does require a waiver to the code requirements. So as Mr. Wardle pointed out, the access is 18 feet because of that utility pole. So currently as it stands, it does not meet code on its face. It does require that waiver. um as to the specifics of the negotiation miss williams is here this evening i think she's better suited to maybe answer any of the council's questions as it relates to the concerns with the proposal that the develop developer provided but again i want to just reiterate that counsel for the developer is correct we did attempt to reach the resolution on this it was just not feasible And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Margie Williams, 1251 Northwest 4th Street. I do need to make one correction for the record. So it's actually not 18 feet. Last January, I submitted a tape measure marking of 15 feet 5 inches. That is the total width. And it's in photographic. I guess record. It's one way traffic. It's a big safety concern of ours. The picture is actually very helpful. So. Oh, sorry. Our driveway is 11 feet of concrete with 6 inches of overhang on either side. So it's actually 12 feet. um per the rural standard so two houses back in the day were allowed to have 12 foot driveways it couldn't be more than two homes from what i understand but that's how it got to be um the also there's been talk about the i guess property line um there's nothing on i have the plats in the survey documents there's nothing on there that says um you know, our approved driveway needs to be widened to accommodate a new development. It actually is there as an irrigation easement, mainly. It also, that neighbor, Holly, it goes right up to her door. So you'd open a car, if we built that out, you'd open the car door and hit her house. Also, we're actually... Laura D' Fine with the 12 feet as we actually mostly function on the 12 foot driveway. Laura D' Are we have half acre lots and our driveways are very wide and deep, so we have no problem maneuvering the additional. Our proposal was to put a curb, which is commonly used steep enough that it's usually a 4 to 4 inch curb, but less than 6, and it provides a jolt. If you go over it, you know, at even greater than 5 miles an hour. So people will want to stick to the pathway of that 20 foot drive and not randomly jolt over so we find that would be sufficient also the national standard or common standard for backing up is 24 feet so they have 25 or 20 in front of the houses um offering the additional five um where you would go over have to go over very slowly um And honestly, we would only be using it for backing up a trailer occasionally. We don't cross over because we don't need to. They're the ones that have the very short lots and narrow driveways and are going to have incredible difficulty backing up without hitting anything. But it would make it to, I guess, the standard to be under 24 feet would be 25. um also um gosh where am I with that we are concerned with safety because nobody I mean the developer didn't talk about how he's going to manage one-way traffic for so there's actually seven homes on this driveway one doesn't take access from it but You know, the three new homes are actually there'll be four on that side, going down, it's got to be 150 feet or more of the inch point that's narrowed down to 15 feet, five inches of one way traffic turning onto Fourth Street. So people are going to have to be backing up emergency vehicles might not be able to access it and backup because of the one way traffic and services will have difficulty It's going to be a constant every day backing up on that developer side. Since there's only two of us on the other side, we will manage, we manage perfectly well. It would be somewhat inconvenient at times, but since there's only two homes of the 12-foot driveway, we can handle one-way traffic better than four homes. And one of the other things is, so for negotiating agreement, the developer hasn't offered anything different since 2020, September 2024, two years ago. I submitted two pictures of they still want the same 11 feet of our driveway, which would be 31 foot driveway, which is more than like a street for backing up. No reasonable person needs that full amount to back up. I looked up um the aashto geometric design standards and the dot roadway design manuals and um the the curb we're proposing or did propose it creates a visual and physical deterrent um sorry my notes are kind of scattered but um I guess their argument of people need 31 feet backing up it's defies common sense and logic and people manage perfectly well on 24 foot wide streets and they don't, especially if you're going over a bump back up all the way into. Like the far lane of a full width street and they just don't do that you just like we do normally you do a night and normal backup. And it is supported by civil engineer design standards that way um. And we do, I guess, we have tried to negotiate, they have not. The only thing they offered was paving the parking pad in front of our shop, which does nothing to alleviate the one way traffic. Our proposal, we actually created two way traffic up to the so there's the first two houses at the entry so we proposed the to give an additional five feet all the way up to the middle house the hansen house um and then due to the increased traffic the other the other area we wanted to be made us like a sidewalk or walking path so we could safely get to our mailbox um that was our other concern too is like is all this traffic and we don't have a separate way to go down a 300 foot driveway to access the road um So as we compromised, we would give the additional feet to total 20 feet two-way traffic up to the middle house, and then that's where it would split, because they have a full 20 feet there. And so that's where the five-foot backing up would start. It would just be... um incidental like backing up from us and there's no reason like people back up that far over i mean 25 feet's plenty to back up a normal vehicle and drive on your roadway they they're not gonna i mean i i guess not per me per the um national standards i looked up that's not something people do um i guess we're also concerned too about I guess even just the construction and digging ruining our driveway where the sewer lines are going to be placed in the pump house. So this also has easement to people going to do any type of maintenance to the pump house. It's really confusing where they would even, it's not represented where they would even park or turn around. It would basically have to be our property.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Council, any questions? Mr. Mayor. Councilman Overton.

Ms. Williams, it's obvious listening to you and listening to the applicant that neither of you have been able to come together to an agreement on some form of shared access drive. But the ultimate decision could end up being an approval of this project and you having only 11 feet to drive no matter which way you're going, and then all trash cans have to come out to 4th Street.

We proposed just a small opening in the fence.

I'm sorry. What the applicant is telling us is a fence. He's not saying there's going to be an opening in that fence. He's saying that you would have your side, they would have their 20-foot side or their 18-foot side. I just need to make sure that we're all speaking the same language, that that would leave you 11 feet, that originally you had 20 feet plotted.

That was 30 years ago, sorry.

Sure, I get it. And you've developed it, you've landscaped it. I'm not asking you to tear it up. But that's what it was intended for 30 years ago, was it not?

No, it never says that on the plat. Or it says it's for irrigation, actually.

not development of because a 12-foot driveway was standard back then and that's what the occupancy checks would show i would guess that 30 years ago they believed we wouldn't be standing here today arguing over a cross-access agreement for this number of houses i just i want to make sure that you understand the applicant said if we approve this and they put a fence down that line But that gives only 11 feet on the South for all access for the three homes on the South. That's it. And that, I believe, if it was Republic Services delivering trash or picking up trash, they're only going to take trash containers that come out to 4th Street. Is that that's all understood?

So I guess my proposal and ask of the city would be if there would be no trespass, our cans would be on our side, would just to be a small opening where the trash, as it drives by, would grab it and dump it. Our can on our property, no trespassing. There would be a fence with a small opening for the trash as a concession. Our driveways, as I said, our lots are bigger and deeper and wider, we have no problem maintaining our it's it's the other neighborhood that's going to have significant difficulty and one way traffic we manage it every day.

Thanks for being here and I just I know that you've probably been really frustrated with this process and just being very honest I've been really frustrated with this process too and I appreciate you coming up here and testifying on your own behalf I am going to ask some questions of your council here in a minute but I think just to maybe get to council member Overton's questions is that your preference is that you would want a fence to divide a pathway As opposed to having wider access for everyone.

Other than the five foot proposal of cross access agreement that would be our second option. Mr and the and the two way traffic, we think would be much safer up to todd's house.

And Margie, I understand you live here and you live this every day. And I think that's where some of your testimony is hard for me to quite comprehend what you're talking about because I haven't lived it. And I'm not asking you to try and convey that to me because part of public testimony is hearing that lived experience. And I'm hearing that from you tonight. But I just – I want to make sure that I'm clear because I think that's ultimately – where the council is going to land tonight is to decide to either create a barrier and both parties will have less space because you can't come and work together as neighbors and create a larger space for the benefit of everyone. What I'm hearing is your preferences, less space for you, less space for the neighbors across the street, as opposed to more space for everyone.

Correct, because I haven't heard a compromise at all.

I appreciate that. And if I can, Margie, maybe that's where I'd like to ask your council if you're okay with that, some questions. Hi, good evening. I appreciate hearing kind of all different sides on this. I am. I'm struggling to understand where the areas of a contention are between you and the applicant. And I'm hoping you can maybe walk the council through those kind of line by line. What are those bones of contention? And I recognize there are probably some things that are bigger deals. And there's other things that, hey, we could probably plug our nose if we can find some common ground on those bigger deals. Would you mind spending a few minutes and walk the council through that?

Yes, of course, Mr. Mayor, Councilmember. So maybe I'll tell the council first what we were able to reach some compromises on. So originally, my clients were not inclined to provide any kind of entirety access through the length of this driveway. As Margie mentioned, they wanted to just provide an initial five feet at the entrance to allow and accommodate access at the approach of the driveway. We moved away from that and we were able to discuss full length access moving from the east to the west along the length of the driveway. But my client's position was that all that was needed by the developer was five feet. That they did not want to provide the full 11 feet and part of that was because both parties had agreed that no parking would be allowed in the cross access. So I think there was some concern of providing the full 11 feet that it may interrupt some occasional parking that occurs by my client within that 11 feet that's been developed on that south side, so the concrete area. So I wanted to just point out those were some of the items that were negotiated and agreed upon. In addition, my clients agreed that they would provide and pay for ongoing operation and maintenance of their side, which was not the starting place of negotiations. Related to the sticking points, 5 feet versus 11 feet. In addition, my clients requested that the developer repair or improve their portion of the cross access easement, so that 11 feet. My client's position is that their driveway currently, their 11 feet that is concrete, is not in a state that can handle additional traffic. and so they asked that part as part of the construction that the developer pay for re-paving or re-concreting that portion i would say those are the two main sticking points the rest we were able to to really come to some kind of agreement on mr mayor maybe just a quick follow-up the issue about the current state of of the concrete not being able to support the increased traffic

Is that based on a subjective perspective, was there a survey or analysis that defends that position again I. i'm not trying to diminish but we're talking about three additional homes and it's again let's say all those homes have. Five cars and all five of those cars leave every day and come back every day we're talking about 30 additional trips and so. I'm surprised by that. And so I would assume there's some analysis that justifies that request.

Mr. Mayor, Council Member, I think Ms. Williams could speak to this, but they did seek out a estimate for the repairs of their driveway. I believe that was submitted. So they did have someone come out and look at the driveway.

Mr. Mayor, and I've read that. And again, i'm not trying to be confrontational about this i just i i just kind of respond to what i see but what i'm seeing is it feels like that the existing asphalt is it being in need of repair and your client is asking the applicant to pay for that in exchange for giving them what they need i don't want to draw that conclusion but that's the conclusion that i'm set at unless there's some other analysis that essentially demonstrates that this concrete would be in such disrepair because of additional 50 cars a day on it. And I didn't see that in the record, and I'm not trying to make any assumptions, but that's that's the conclusion I'm drawing without any additional information. And so I don't know if we have that and I've missed it. I've seen the estimates from Mr. Mudd for the repairs, but my conclusion is that those repairs need to be done regardless and not as a result of increased traffic, but as existing use.

Mr. Mayor, Council Member, I would have to defer to Ms. Williams on that.

Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Schroeder.

I want to dig into how you're characterizing the negotiations a little bit because Mrs. Williams said that she also wanted a sidewalk put in. Was that part of what your client was asking for?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilmember. My client had requested that some kind of sidewalk or pathway be provided for all users of the driveway in order to ensure safe access to, for example, mailboxes. So I think the discussion was that the developer put in some kind of pathway and there be some communal mailbox situation at the end of the driveway.

Mr. Mayor? I think what I'm struggling with here is I think there's a difference between reaching an agreement on cross access and being equitable and then you know kind of overreaching for an improvement that doesn't exist today and I'm trying to figure out where that line is at. There's definitely one fact in dispute right now, which is whether or not, in fact, it will be 18 feet wide or not. So Mr. Mayor, if it's okay, I'd love to ask staff, have we independently in any way verified and established that fact, because we have an applicant that's saying it's going to be 18 feet, and they want a waiver, and they want to count two feet of curb. And then we've got testimony, public testimony that they've measured it, and it's 15 feet. And that is a very important fact for me tonight. So I'd like to know, what do we know? What have we verified on that specifically, please?

Mayor, members of the council, no, staff has not gone out there and verified that that's the actual true width of what that is. We trust that the engineer provides us a scale drawing and we double check that with the plan submittal and we verify that with construction drawings. That's how we complete, do our analysis of that. We don't physically go out to the site and measure that until after it is completed and built. It's part of the process. And I know that the applicant has also been working with our fire department on those with requirements as well, and meeting their requirements. So I've been in meetings with Mr. Talby many times, and he did approve the common driveway, as you see in front of the drawing this evening, with that exception.

Council Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And so in a case like this where there's a dispute, we do have drawings from an engineer. Typically, we do rely on those. But there is a dispute. Doesn't it seem like it would be better to get clear on that now? Because what I'm curious about is how do we handle cases like this where there's a dispute about a basic fact like that? Isn't it better for us to resolve that now? as opposed to I'm imagining a scenario where this is built and then we're going for final inspections and like, surprise, it's not 18 feet, God forbid, or whatever. How would we resolve that then? Tell me about what are the pathways of resolving this now versus later?

So Mayor, members of the council, it's just like what the applicant explained. Typically, they have to verify the property boundaries. Staff does not have a surveyor on site. We're trusting that engineers going out there, marking the properties, verifying their dimensions of their property. So that's kind of the first step of a plat. They're verifying their boundaries. And then that PE goes in, professional engineer goes in there and throws in all the other things. Yes, in a perfect world, it's better to get those resolved. But taking out a tape measure and saying this is what I'm measuring and not knowing exactly where the property boundaries are and having that survey document, it's hard for us to verify that. We have no way to do that. So we have to lean on the professional land surveyors to do that and tell us that information. And that's why we have that review process so you it's i i can go out there take a tape measure and say it's 16 feet i don't know if they built the driveway on the right pro if they cross their property line or not without having a survey document out there and a pin all the property pins identified on the site and verifying that it's um so it it's it's a little muddy there to do that but uh obviously this one's been going on for a long way i do sympathize with miss williams as well i understand they've been there for a long time rules have changed um and and feel as hard as the applicants uh acknowledged and so we're trying to find a win-win we were hoping they could compromise but sometimes it's it's it's hard to compromise sometimes when we're talking about property rights I do just want to mention that I had a chance to pull up the record or survey that was done for the Williams property back in 99. And it does show a 30-foot easement, ingress-egress easement across their property. So they built their driveway at 11 or 12 feet, but they had rights to have a 30-foot driveway there. So again, it is what it is. It's water on their bridge. It wasn't built that way. Different rules in place. The city had a completely different... Building department process than we have today we had contractors, so I don't know what those discussions were. I wasn't here when that home was built. So, we don't again, that's what we've been communicating to miss Williams is we've got to live with the build conditions, but we're trying to find a workable solution by having both parties work together. And this has been going on for almost a year now. And I don't know what that solution is. I wish they would. We all agree that if a 20-foot driveway was built and shared among all the property owners, it would be better for everyone involved. But unfortunately, we can't seem to get there.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, again, I'm not sure this will answer everyone's questions, but every time we've talked about this project, I've looked at the street view, not the aerial view of this area, and it is a little confusing, and there's two different street views, and one is, when you look at the bottom of the Google map, one is 2015, and one is 2022. When I look at the 2022 one, which basically shows an angle from about this portion of the street here um where that brown cutout is um across the street from fourth there so in 20 2016 there's a pole in the middle of the street but by 2022 there's a power pole on the corner and there's a power pole right there on the corner that they're talking about so this is the 2016 view If you back it up a little bit, there's a 2022 view that shows the power pole they keep talking about. The power pole is right behind the street sign today. It's not there. This is 2016. That's why you don't see it. There's a power pole here and there's a power pole there. And so when you look at it from the street view of 2022, it might give you a better view of what this driveway looks like. And you can see the concrete driveway on the south with adjacent yard and the fence and a truck with a trailer parked on that driveway that obviously could fit through that pathway there. I don't know if it helps you the answer, but if you look at this as 22, there's a pole that's not in the other picture you were looking at. Because that one is when you take it right here in 2015, there's no pole.

Mr. Mayor?

Councillor Canner.

Mayor, you may want to help navigate our planning stuff on how to switch the years.

Yeah, if you back up on the map view on Google, across the street, it gives you the 2022 shot of the street. So there's two different views of that street at two different points in time. And that's maybe what's harder to visualize when you look at these, because again, if you look at certain points in time, there's also one, if you go to the south of the intersection is 2017 and the street and the poles in the middle of the road.

Mr. Mayor. Councilman Schroeder.

I guess a question for Mrs. Williams and her attorney. Besides measuring it yourself, which I think you heard our testimony from city staff on why that's problematic compared to an engineer, do you have any other information or evidence that suggests that there was a deficiency in the work that the applicant's engineer did? Or do you have any other kind of backup for your assertion that it's 15 feet and not 18 feet? I'd just like to understand that from your perspective.

There have been surveyors out and they have remarked with the tape. So there's pink tape visible. The pins are in there. You can also hear them with the metal detector. The picture we submitted is actually from that pin to the end. It's 15.5 feet.

Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify. Did you hire a surveyor? What surveyor are you referring to?

there actually was a surveyor out from another neighbor adjacent to us and they were looking at our back neighbor and so she actually did the original survey of that area in 99 and so she was just going through and remarking she remarked the pin by our by the ditch as well Mr Mayor that's what I'm sure

please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think I can really consider the testimony of a neighbor hiring a different surveyor that you didn't hire. It's just a little bit too much of a hearsay kind of a thing to me. Like it seems a little bit removed from you. So I, okay. So I, from what I'm hearing is you, you, your personal opinion is that it's going to be 15 feet, but that's based on your measurement, right? I just want to understand where that came from. That is from you yourself personally measuring.

Me personally measuring from the existing pin.

From the existing pin, okay. Which, just to be clear though, this is a pin that was put into place by your neighbor based on something that happened in the 1990s?

No, this is an existing pin that's been there from when she did the original survey. I have her name, but she did the survey in 99 and she's still a surveyor. And it's just, they're able to use a metal detector and mark the existing pins that are there in the ground.

Okay. All right, let me chew on that for a minute.

Any additional questions at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Mayor, that was everyone.

Sorry, I can't hear that. Sorry, that was everyone. Okay, is there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this item? Like to come forward or use the raise your hand feature on Zoom? Good evening, say your name and address, be recognized for three minutes.

Justin Williams, 1251 Northwest 4th Street. I was just going to talk a little bit about the irrigation. The problem with the irrigation is that the water comes from the hunter lateral. The people above us flood irrigate. So we've had to turn our water off, which is just one little tiny pump for our yard, so we can only water in the middle of the night. So no matter what happens, if the people above us on a Tuesday block the water, we don't get any water. So there's no way to fill it. so these guys have actually tapped into two ditches and that pump runs 24 hours a day seven days a week and it does not keep up so sometimes there's this much water and sometimes there's no water so unless they put some sort of float system to kill that whole system it will not work unless they can figure out a way to pull water from the other ditch, but the other ditch does the exact same thing. So as those people flood irrigate, when it's 100 degrees, I literally turn my pump off until I know there's water in there because it just burns up your pump.

Thank you. Council, any questions?

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony? Council, are you prepared to hear from the applicant for final comments? Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward for any final comments.

Mr. Mayor, members of council, Good questions were raised and I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate city council trying to work through and solve this. And all I can rely upon is what our engineers go out and survey and measure and put into the plans. And I've reviewed the submittals and the measurement that we have is that we have a 20 foot wide easement that is north of their property that doesn't interfere with the 30 foot wide easement that the Williams have. and that telephone pole was placed where it was. So that at that point reduces the width to approximately 18 feet. But let's focus on what we're talking about here. We're going to install 18 feet of asphalt with a two-foot rolled curb to the north. So there still is approximately a 20-foot wide travel area. And once we get past the second telephone pole, which keeps it at about 21 feet, it opens up and it widens up. I don't disagree with Ms. Germain's characterization at all of our discussion. I think the fundamental struggle has been a five-foot easement is not there for backup. It's so that as vehicles pull in, pull into anyone's drive, anyone's home, and turn around to go back out, that they're able to do so without trespassing. And that's why we said it should be the width of the travel. To the extent that there were concerns about parking, Ms. Germain and I talked about that and I said, I believe that if we had our 20 plus feet plus their 11 feet and the fire department agreed, we can allow parking on their side of the street. We recognize with a 20 foot, we would never have that. But again, the notion isn't that we need the space to back up. The notion is that if you want to have a functioning drive, it needs to function as a drive. And that was the struggle too with the request that there be some kind of curb. Because as we looked at that and evaluated it, A, we anticipate your public works department would have a serious problem with that, and B, to install a curb on the property line between the two properties, what is the difference between that and offense? It creates the same difficulty and problem. And I appreciate the Williams coming and being here tonight, and I appreciate their concerns. And I do think that everybody has made some concessions, but the other thing too is that we still don't have... I mean our Community my communications been with with Mr main and she has multiple property owners and that has been part of the struggle and i'm. Not saying we absolutely wouldn't do it, but I am saying this application for a three lot subdivision has has languished and uh. we need a decision, we need to be able to move forward. And I can assure you, I don't like not being able to solve problems, but this is a problem that I have not been able to solve. And I think that the ultimate resolution just has to be a recognition that both of these properties are served by distinct private drives and it's unfortunate because ideally you would have a an approximately 30 foot wide roadway but we're not in a position we're not in a position to make that happen and i just uh again as we've talked about i would be more than willing to And i'd have to work with Mr nary on something would satisfy you, but we certainly have done springing easements. In the event certain things were to happen in the future that and we're comfortable with everybody maintaining their own side of the roadway and we're also comfortable with if there were an agreement that. the concerns that the neighbors have articulated about where the actual boundary of their concrete drive, that would become a non-issue. And the last thing I want to point out is we recognize that if we damage someone else's property, we have an obligation to repair it and to replace it. And that has never been an issue or concern because we know that if we damage their driveway in the course of construction or anything else, have to be appropriate repairs, and that will be done. So with that, members of council, I request that you go ahead and approve this application with the conditions that have been proposed and discussed tonight, and that we just, we're in a position to move this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Mr. Mayor.

Yes, too quick. If he doesn't get too far away. yeah he'll be back councilman overton just to to tighten up my knowledge of the existing roadway the boundaries that you're using to measure your 18 to 20 to 21 feet goes long does none of that property line starts until the edge of their concrete. What I'm saying is there's not a portion where actually you're going to be moving on to the existing concrete drive that's there now.

Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, I think this, I mean, this shows the concrete drive, and it's my understanding from reviewing the survey that there is a portion out here uh that is south of the property line there is a little bit of a gap but that their drive does not encroach north the the edge of that concrete does not encroach north Obviously, if it did, then we have some other potential issues, but we have no intention of impeding their ability to utilize what is on their property and what is their drive. Okay. Mr. Mayor, one other quick one.

Just to confirm, the fencing that would then go at the edge of that would be a solid fence all the way down with no gaps?

mr mayor councilmember overton i don't anticipate that we would include any gaps because if we don't have an agreement as to you know shared use that still is is inviting that uh mr brecken can opine more if we need to get into the details but yeah the intent would be that it would be a fence that satisfies the city's code

Just one thought and Mr. Wardle brought it up. So if the council is willing and we can at least include as a condition that a future easement, let me preface this. When I had a conversation with Ms. Germain a while ago, one of the things I told her is part of the reason what the city was looking for and trying to find a resolution is because all these property owners may not be there forever. But five or 10 years from now, other people may live there and wonder, why is there a fence? Why is there this weird driveway here and a weird driveway there? And if the property owners at some point in the future can't agree to an easement, If we had a condition in this condition of approval for this plat, that a future easement will be granted if there is an agreement from the south side of the driveway and the north to then remove the fencing and allow for a cross access, then we won't at least be arguing about that in five years on whether or not there's approval to do it. Right now, there is no approval to do it, but if we could get that language into this, that might at least solve a future issue. Because then again, it won't be on these folks to try to work that out. They don't have to do anything today. But future owners may be willing to do that, and it may make more sense in five years. So maybe that might be the one condition that might help at least the council's concerned about what the future might hold.

Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Wardle. And Mr. Mayor, just to confirm for Council, we are amenable to that.

Mr. Mayor. Council Member Strader.

Just to reconfirm, you guys are okay with designing and installing your own irrigation system is what I heard from the applicant.

Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, Mr. Bricken indicated yes.

Okay. And I, Mr. Mayor, just for context, like, feel bad asking for it, because I agree, it's probably a duplication of resources. But to be honest, like, I'm scared you guys are just gonna end up suing each other. And I think the fewer issues to fight about the better. Hopefully, the adage, good fences make good neighbors could help solve this. It's a shame. This is a real missed opportunity, I think, on all sides. But I think everyone tried. Everybody tried really hard to get there. And unfortunately, nobody could agree. It is a shame.

Yeah, I think I feel like I'm story time again because I talked about this the very, very first time this came up, but I went home to my. House I grew up in a few weeks ago in Pocatello and we have a neighbor that splits the driveway in half. And yeah, but my friend that I actually grew up, he got the house from his parents recently and he talked about how he's going to rip out all the landscaping in front of their yard to create the the. driveway completely through to allow them to get in and out and yell at the fence to serve its purpose there's been no issues between the neighbors for between. My family and then they're my my parents and their parents who have all pretty much all passed away as kids could solve it, but the parents never could and won't be there forever, but it's there for today.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor.

Council Chair.

Curious to get Mr. Neri's feedback about this concept of a springing cross-access. Would that language, if we're interested in that kind of a concept, would that come back as part of like a development agreement for us to review? Like how would we try to tackle, best tackle that concept? Would you still advise that? Like help me understand that.

So, Mr members accounts council for sure there's there's no development agreement here because the property is already annexed. So it is just a condition of approval for the plat. We would work probably with planning to craft that language and then work with the with the developer on the language. We do on a lot of cross access when you are going to develop 1 side and not the others that there will be a future easement. um mr main has one currently with another issue with the same thing where we've put a burden on one property owner to provide that for our future access so uh it's language we've developed on a number of these and we will we do them in development agreements but here we'll just we'll make it into part of the condition of approval

Mr. Mayor, I think maybe we've tried so hard on this one to get compromises and we're just not there. I move that we close a public hearing on this item.

I have a motion second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed.

Mr. Mayor, I'm going to give it a shot. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H2025-0030 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date with the following modifications. Noting specifically that the applicant will design and install their own irrigation system for these lots. uh instructing planning staff to please work with the city attorney and the applicant on provision for some type of a springing cross-access agreements and noting the waiver of the 18 feet inclusive of the two-foot curb I think i've got it all looking at staff if i've missed anything that we needed to address sonia did we get it all. No okay.

Yes, sorry Dean. I did not catch all of it now.

Mr mayor.

Councilman Schroeder.

And just to recap, so approving and the conditions where the applicant will design and install their own irrigation system, planning staff and the city attorney will work with the applicant on language around a springing cross access agreements. I believe we had already covered the modifications to condition 11, et cetera was already agreed upon. So I don't have any other items besides the waiver, which I also included. I'm seeing head nods.

I don't believe there is any crime.

It's about as clear as mud, Mayor.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? I'll call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor Kavanaugh.

Aye.

Strader.

Aye. Woodlock.

Aye.

Little-Roberts.

Aye.

Overton. Aye. All ayes. Motion carries. Ayes. Agree to. We do one more okay let's let's get through item eight and then we'll take a quick break after that so with that move on to automate which the public hearing for part pollard commercial split shp 2026-0007 over this publication with staff comments.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So this application is for a short plat to replat lot five, block two of Pollard subdivision number one, from one to two lots on 1.73 acres of land. That's zone CG and it's located at 6489 North Levi Avenue. So the policy subdivision was annexed and received preliminary flat approval in 2019 followed by the final flat approval in 2022 and recordation in 2023. So the entire area that was annexed encompassed about 77.33 acres of land. located on the east and west side of North Levi, along the north side of West Chittenden Boulevard, midway between North McDermott Road and North Black Cat Road. And as part of the annexation, they entered into a development agreement that included provisions that govern future development of the property. And then 2024, they modified the to remove the single family residential portion of the development along the northwest side of waiver 10 drive. Then they came back in June of 2026, modified the existing development agreement for the purpose of updating the conceptual development plan to accurately reflect current development activity and to allow for independent progression of the identified lots. The site layouts and access parking pedestrian pathways and public gathering areas, plazas that had already been approved were depicted on those conceptual development plans. So lot six is still anticipated to develop with the hospital, but lot five is what they are proposing to subdivide for the purpose of having two commercial lots. The landscaping is still as what was proposed with the original plat. There were no written testimonies, written comments received on this application. Staff has no objection to the proposal. We are recommending approval. with the conditions outlined in our staff report. And at this time, I will take any questions that you may have on this application.

Thank you, Linda. Counsel, any questions for staff? Okay, would the applicant like to come forward?

Good evening, Mayor, members of Council, Eli Bensky 2929 West Navigator Drive. Thank you, Linda. So we're here to discuss Pollard commercial short plot. It's a split to create two commercial lots. As she as Linda mentioned, we are located north of Chinden Boulevard. Here's a map representing the applications that Linda gave a rundown regarding. In blue, that border encompasses the greater Pollard area. We had the DA approved in 2021, and we recorded the final plot in 2023. In 2025, we brought forward Pollard Residential, which is the area in green. We just recorded the final plot for or the first final plot for Pollard residential or Pollard North. The second phase for Pollard North is still in the works. In pink we have Pollard West that was the development agreement modification that was brought forward earlier this year and in red, those are the two commercial lots that we're addressing today for the commercial split. We did try to correct this as a final plot modification. When we went back to Ada County surveying, they requested that we do this correction through a short plot, which is the reason that we're bringing it forward here as an application for you guys to review. Here is in greater detail that split, splitting just down the middle for each building. With that, we request your approval on this application tonight, and we concur with the conditions in the staff report.

Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Mr. Clerk, anyone want to sign up to provide testimony?

Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up.

Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this application? If you're online, raise your hand. Otherwise, you can come forward. seeing no one raising their hand and no one coming forward the applicant wave final comments applicant waves final comments council what's your desire mr mayor councilman overton move that we close the public hearing second have a motion second to close the public hearing on favor signify by saying aye aye opposed nay the guys haven't the public hearing is closed

Mr. Gotsman over to this is pretty straightforward and kind of see any issues with this with that I move ahead after considering all staff applicant public testimony and move to approve file number shp 2026 007 as presented the staff report for the hearing date of September 8th 2026.

I have a motion a second to approve item shp 2026-0007 is there discussion if not core color.

Mayor Mrakas, Thank you, Mr Mayor Kavanagh straighter with lock Roberts over to.

Mayor Mrakas, I always motion carries him is great too, so we will go ahead and take a recess till 820 because they're about 12 minutes, so we will reconvene then. All right, everyone seems to be ready. Are we ready, Chris? So we'll go ahead and come back from our break, and we'll move on to item 9, which is public hearing for Rackham Microhospital, age 2026-00011. We'll open this public hearing with staff comments.

Mr. Rath? Mayor Mrakas, Councilman counter where we jump into item nine I just want to announce I shared this with our accounts present legal counsel earlier. Mayor Mrakas, My wife has association with an organization, we will see some public commentary on. Mayor Mrakas, Well, I don't think that she has any personal gains or losses, depending on tonight's application and interest of transparency i'm going to go and recuse myself from this evening's proceedings. Mayor Mrakas, i'll be in our executive chambers and somebody just grabbed me when we're done and i'll come back for the ordinance readings.

Mayor Mrakas, Thank you. Mayor Mrakas, have some walk.

Probably no surprise to you or the members of the Council that my day job, I run the Idaho Hospital Association, and this next application deals with a hospital. I should let the Council know that I have visited a similar hospital in Post Falls and toured that facility in my capacity as president and CEO of the hospital association. They are not a member of the association. And while there, I had no discussions about the potential of this application coming before the city council tonight. So I think I'm able to sit in here and judge fairly.

Thank you.

with that Linda okay so this application is for a cup a development agreement modification and a preliminary plat so this site consists of about 5.21 acres of land it's zone CG and it's located in the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Overland Road So approximately 9.0 acres of the land was annexed in Zone CG from RUT and R1 in 2008 to develop with retail and restaurant uses in the future. Concurrently, the applicant requested to vacate the existing right-of-way of South Rackham Way Approval for the proposed vacation application would allow the applicant to do a land swap with ACHD to reconstruct Rackham Way to Overland Road further to the east. The site was vacant except for an ACHD parking lot on the northern portion of the annexation area. The parking lot was proposed to remain. So they are proposing to, again, modify the existing development agreement to update certain provisions, the conceptual plan, and build an elevation. They are applying for a conditional use permit to construct a 2,400 square foot hospital and a preliminary plat, again, consisting of two buildable lots and one common lot. The applicant proposed to construct this 24,000 square foot micro hospital with services, including a full emergency department with 10 exam rooms, including one trauma room, one isolation room, a full imaging department with x-ray, CT scan and MRI. There will be eight overnight patient beds for anyone requiring an overnight or longer stay. The applicant states there will be eight employees and anticipate a daily high of 30 to 50 patrons with an average of 20 to 30 patrons per day. The hospital will be one story in height with landscape and surround in the perimeter. The main entrance for patients with pickups drop-off area is on the west side of the building. A separate ambulance pickup drop-off area is provided on the south side of the building. And it's important to note that the existing facilities, at their existing facilities, less than 1% of all patients arrive or leave via ambulance. The majority of the ambulance trips to the facility will be when a patient is leaving. to be transported to another larger emergency care facility like St. Alphonsus or St. Luke's. Per the applicant, the hospital is a concierge patient choice type facility, often preferred over general hospitals for less urgent specific patron needs. So access to this proposed hospital is from Rackham Way, will be restricted to ambulances and patients traveling to the site. Eastbound traffic exiting the development would be directed to use Silverstone Way. According to ACHD, the intersection at South Eagle Road and Overland Road cannot be reconfigured to accommodate U-turn movements. Staff is requiring the removal of the existing attached sidewalks and install a detached multi-use pathway along East Overland Road and South Eagle Road. The multi-use pathway along Eagle Road will be required to curve to the northeast to connect with the 10 foot sidewalk along Rackham Way. This is the sidewalk that we're talking about. The rail line Rackham Way will include a five foot attached sidewalk on both sides of the roadway directing pedestrians further away from Eagle and Overland intersection and improving overall pedestrian safety. Proposal also includes an internal sidewalk network that provides safe pedestrian connections between surface parking areas and building entrances. In addition, cross access will be provided to the adjacent property to the east allowing for further for future connectivity and circulation flexibility. This is the access point we're talking about. So their hours of operation for the CG is limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. when the property abuts residential use or districts. Extended hours of operations may be requested through a conditional use permit. The property does not abut any residential use or districts and therefore has no limitation on the hours of operation. The applicant states that the hospital will operate 24-7 to serve the area residents requiring care. So they have to meet the specific use standards per UDC 11-4-3-22 for hospital. The parking stalls, parking required is one parking stall per 500 square feet of gross floor area. 48 parking spaces are required. The applicant was proposing 57 spaces exceeding the parking requirement. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed hospital. Final design is required to comply with the design standards and the architectural standard manuals. The modification to the development agreement is the modification of condition 5.13 is to increase the building square footage to 25,000 square feet from 20,000. And they want to delete 5.1.11 and 5.1.19. Get to that. And one of the issues that came to staff's attention when reviewing this, per UDC 11.4-3.22, if hospital provides emergency care, the location shall have direct access on an arterial. The proposed hospital use does not have access to either the abundant arterial roadways. overland or eagle rose primary access to the site is provided from a local street rack and way which provides a connection to the arterial streets this is something that the city council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement We did receive written testimony prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was from Brett Brombeck, a member of the Idaho Association of Health Plans. had concerns regarding traffic and infrastructure adequacy, internal consistency of the application record, and compatibility with the surrounding areas. He felt that a traffic study should have been required and that the applicant is not being forthcoming regarding the use on lot two. Apparently they saw something where they thought it was going to be Something that had a drive-through, but that's not what is shown on the concept plans for this. Sorry, let's see if I can go back. In talking with the applicant, it's supposed to be something that has some kind of restaurant type and maybe some other service in this building. But this was the original concept that was approved when it was approved the first time and they were going to do the right-of-way exchange with ACHD. There was supposed to be some retail along here. Was it a gas station? Some service station in this area. Staff did recommend approval of this with the conditions in the staff report. The commission did recommend approval with some modifications to some of the conditions that we had. In working with the applicant and in the ACHD staff report, there was a condition that the complete vacation exchange had to be done prior to submittal of the first final plat. ACHD said that was an incorrect statement, and they revised their staff report, so staff has no objection to removing that condition. That was something that the Planning Commission wanted staff to clarify. And then another thing was the issuance of building permits. us to um allow them to be issued a building permit after the right-of-way had been vacated we cannot allow them to get a building permit before the right-of-way is vacated because based on how the property is right now they will be building in the right-of-way so the right-of-way has to be vacated so the what we came up with is that um The building permit shall be issued prior to the existing Rackham-Rideaway being vacated to establish the new roadway. The plat shall be recorded prior to the certificate of occupancy for the first building. So we did receive written testimony prior to this meeting. It was from, let me grab it here, Abigail Germani of Elam and Burke on behalf of the the Idaho Association of Health Plans. I don't know if you guys saw this in a record. Basically, is asking council to deny the application. And if not, have it remanded back to PNZ for some modifications to the plan. They don't believe it meets the requirement of the CUP. based on the requirement to take direct access off of an arterial. They have concerns about a traffic impact study not being required. And, The right away, and a Chd documentation of some concerns. So there's it's quite a bit of items within that letter. Abigail is here, and i'm sure she'll be able to go over her concerns regarding this application. But again, staff did recommend approval with the conditions outlined in our staff report and Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval also with the modification to the conditions. And there was a condition that we had added, we had put in before, but we took out because there was a discrepancy on who owned that stretch of Eagle Road. And today we found out that it does belong to ITD. It is within their jurisdiction. It is a state highway. So state highways require noise berms along there for hospitals. So the applicant has seen they were notified that we will be adding this condition back into the staff report, and they have no addition to that. But the applicant will confirm that when they come up and provide that information.

So

There was a resolution that was done in 2007 that turned that portion of the roadway over to ITD, but apparently their GIS layer had not been updated when we talked to the individuals, so they didn't have the correct information. So ACHD owns this portion of the road, but the rest of it belongs to ITD. So just wanted to get that on the record to clarify it, so. But, and with that i'll take any questions that you may have.

Thank you Linda Council any questions for staff. Okay, with the app going to come forward.

Good evening, my name is Kelly spath addresses 1100 West Idaho street sweet to 10. Sorry, I was frozen here for a second. Good evening, I am here tonight to discuss aligned subdivision and micro hospital. Like I mentioned, my name is Kelly Spaff, and I'm with Kinley Horne, and we'll be handling the planning and entitlements portions of this project. Also tonight, we have Ian Conner here, who is also with Kinley Horne and is the project's architect. On the phone, we have Mark Jing, who is a member of Alliance for Your Ventures and is the project's developer. And we also have Lyndon Brown here tonight with Davis Stokes Collaborative, who is the project's architect. In-house we also have Dr. Seeley who is here tonight to answer any questions regarding the hospital operations. So we are talking about three parcels on the northeast corner of Overland Road at the intersection of Overland and Eagle Road. Comprised altogether, they amount to about 4.65 acres. As you can see, Rackham Way currently bisects the site and intersects with Overland Road close to the Eagle Road intersection. There is an existing ACHD commuter ride parking lot to the north of the site. Like Linda mentioned, these properties were originally annexed and zoned and put into a development agreement back in 2009. Obviously, they were never developed according to that set of plans, which brings us to our portion of the project. We originally had a pre-op meeting with city staff in January of this year, held a neighborhood meeting in February, submitted our applications in March, had our planning and zoning hearing last month, and here we are tonight. So tonight, we are discussing three different applications, the first is a development agreement modification which will modify that existing da to accommodate the proposed site plan a preliminary plot which will adjust the right of way and parcels for the rack and road relocation. And, as well as a conditional use permit that will permit permit the hospital use in CG zoning. In the future, the city will have a chance to look at this project again with design review and certificate of zoning compliance applications, as well as a final plat application. We will also be taking this project before a CHD board of Commissioners, so they can approve the vacation and exchange of rock and way. Speaking of that Rackham Way relocation, as you can see, we are realigning that road so it connects further east along Overland Road and meanders through the site. We are providing two lots and one common lot with CG zoning. Lot one will be utilized for the micro hospital, and lot two will be sold as a parcel for future commercial development. The common lot on the north side of Rackham Way will be used for stormwater storage and landscaping. The comp plan designates the site as mixed use regional and we believe the project fits well within the boundaries of that zone. As the purpose of the emu designation is to provide a mix of employment retail and public uses like a medical service facility your major arterial intersections like overland and eagle road. Linda touched briefly on the portions of the DA modification we are asking for. The first is just to update the conceptual site plan and building elevations to match the current proposal. We are also asking that the maximum square feet allowed on the parcels be changed from 20,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. And we are also asking that a section of the existing DA be removed. That provision is requiring a proportionate share fee for the construction of a bridge over Five Mile Creek. As you can see on the screen, the bridge that is contemplated in that original DA has been constructed and built out already with the development to the north. Here's our site plan specific to the micro hospital, we are proposing a 24,000 square foot building that is one story in height, we are showing 57 parking stalls and three Ada stalls. A customer entrance is provided on the West side of the building and an ambulance entrance is provided on the South side of the building. We are meeting all dimensional standards of the CG zone. Linda mentioned briefly the sound wall requirement that we've toyed with back and forth a few different times. City Council Chambers, Initially, had another concept that. City Council Chambers, showed that we could accommodate that sound wall along the western boundary of the property, so we don't have a problem adding that back into the site plan but it's not something. City Council Chambers, We are currently showing just with how the timing and the coordination worked out with everything. Here's a look at our proposed architecture. Proposed materials are a combination of brick and stone veneer, but this building will be further reviewed by design review for compliance with the city's architectural standards. I think it's important we talk about the site access. The main access to the site will be provided by a right in right out intersection at Overland Road. There are a few other options to access the site, especially if you're traveling eastbound. The first would be to take a U-turn at the Silverstone Way light, an intersection with Overland Road. Or if patrons don't want to do that, there are public roads they could drive up Silverstone Way, along Flatiron Way, and back down to access the site from the north via Rackham Way. Based on ACHD feedback, we're also providing additional raised median in Overland to better optimize the safety of the Eagle and Overland intersection. We believe that this new roadway layout is better for the overall area because it consolidates the access points to these properties away from Overland and creates a safer and more controlled traffic pattern to the site. And we also want to point out that direct access from Overland is prohibited both by ACHD and the existing development agreement. View of the microhospital operations we wanted to touch on. We will be providing a full emergency department with 10 ER rooms, an imaging department, and eight overnight patient beds. We're anticipating eight to 10 employees and 20 to 30 anticipated patrons per day. The anticipated ambulance trips for this type of project are very low with about four to five arriving to the site per month and about 12 leaving. And the proposed operating hours are 24-7. I think Linda mentioned it, but the anticipated patrons would come to the micro hospital for less urgent specific needs than they might go to a traditional emergency room for. We chatted briefly about UDC 11-4-3-22, which says hospitals providing emergency care shall have direct access on an arterial. While the microhospital does not technically have direct access on an arterial, we believe we are meeting the intent of the code. Both Eagle and Overland are arterial roads. The access is provided via Rackham Way, which is a local road. The facility will still have high visibility from both of the arterial roadways and the entrance to the site is only about 500 feet away from overland road, which you see marked in that red dashed line. As we discussed in the previous slides this roadway alignment is an overall better option for the safety and traffic patterns in the area. And ambulance traffic to this facility is minimal and will have less impact than what might be contemplated by code in that provision. It's also very rare for the ambulance traffic to this facility to use lights or sirens. So the ambulance trips entering and exit the site would do so like any other normal traffic would. We have received feedback from our agency partners on this project. The first is ACHD, who is providing 74 feet of right-of-way dedication along Overland Road. They are requiring the vacation and dedication of Rackham Way, as well as we are required to provide site distance exhibits for the Rackham Way driveway locations. And that's just to make sure that the driveway locations are safe due to the curvature in that proposed road. uh meridian public works noted that city and water sewer services are available to the site and we provided a fire department access exhibit for the fire department to review and they have reviewed and approved our project as a part of the staff review We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval for the staff report. The only thing we want to touch on again is that piece requiring the hospital to have direct access on the arterial. Just once again want to reiterate that we believe we meet the intent based on the site constraints and the type of anticipated traffic. Linda mentioned briefly that we had worked through a few conditions with staff since planning and zoning hearing. along with ACHD. We are in full agreement with how those conditions are currently worded, so I won't get into the details, but happy to answer any additional questions or explain those further. With that, I ask for approval of Development Agreement Modification Preliminary Plat and CUP, and I will stand for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?

Mr. Mayor.

That's one shader.

Help me understand a little bit about the business that you expect at this hospital. So it seems a little odd to me that you'd have an emergency room and only four to five ambulance trips per month. Is there like a specialty business at this hospital? Is there a certain acuity level that you, like help me understand why that would be the case.

Yeah, I would ask Dr. Robert Seeley to come up and explain more of the operational side of the hospital, if you could.

Robert Sealy, M.D. : didn't say your name and address for the record.

Robert Sealy, M.D. : Good evening, Mr Marin Council members, thank you, my name is Robert sealy 497 South back road post falls. So the intended use, this is an emergency department and we get together at least in post falls. We got together with the emergency medical folks prior to opening at a meeting explaining to them what our capabilities are. And so they are aware that we are not a trauma center. and that we don't have a cath lab and so they take those emergencies to the appropriate locations but there are still folks that come in and we have full diagnostic capabilities to deal with folks with chest pain abdominal pain orthopedic injuries illnesses and those are all well within our capabilities to deal with if we find something that is John Kane, needs further care than what we're able to take care of, we have agreements with the nearby hospitals that we would transfer them at that point and that's where those 12 ambulances a month, the transfers come from so.

Mr. Mayor.

Council Chair.

Do you have agreements with the nearby hospitals or you're saying in Post Falls you have agreements with nearby hospitals?

That is something that's worked out with the hospitals that we worked out prior to opening in Post Falls, correct.

Okay. And then help me understand a little bit more about the ambulance trips. So you're anticipating, you just mentioned like 12 transfers per month potentially from your facility to the surrounding hospitals. But I'm also worried about the ambulances coming in. What is the justification of why you only expect four to five ambulance trips per month, which is what I wrote down? I'm not tracking that math.

Yeah, so the ambulances that come in are folks that say they call an ambulance to go to the hospital and they say, I want to go to Post Falls.

Okay.

The medic, what they will do is they will assess the patient and if they feel they're having a heart attack or if they're having, you know, a major trauma that they will say, well, we feel that you're better served by going to the trauma center. Okay. And so thereby they would bypass us and go directly to the trauma center as they should. So our experience, this data comes from Post Falls, and I've gone through the records over the past two years. We've been open two years now, and that's where that data comes from.

mr mayor that's one straighter okay i'm tracking what you're saying so in post falls based on your experience in post falls it's four to five ambulance trips per month but the population of post falls is not the same as the population of the treasure valley so doesn't it seem logical that we would expect more traffic and more ambulances than in post falls so help me sure follow that logic yeah

So in Post Falls, we are bordered by Coeur d'Alene and all the communities there. And then to the west, sorry, we're on the border of Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, and Spokane proper. And we do draw patients from all of those areas. And so when you combine the catchment area, we're talking in the vicinity of 350 to 400,000 people. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, don't take this the wrong way, but for example, in Meridian, we have a population of, I think now it's like north of 150,000 people just in Meridian. But I have to imagine this is a regional draw, right? It's not just going to be Meridian people. It's going to be all the folks in Boise potentially that want to come to this alternative hospital. Are you thinking that your space itself is a constraint on the number of ambulance trips? Like because of the size of your facility, you could only like physically accommodate a certain number of patients and that is what constrains the amount of ambulance trips. Like I just want to make sure we kind of like flush that out because you're asking for a waiver. Mm-hmm. of a requirement that we normally have to have access directly off an arterial road. Part of the justification I think that you're making, if I'm following your argument, is that you're not going to see a ton of ambulance trips, but it's a hospital. So if there are a ton of ambulance trips, maybe it's an issue. So help me track the logic of how much we're expecting here at this site. Right.

And as I said, we're drawing on information that we have from the Post Falls site. with the population and so you know drawing upon that number and with the number of folks in that community and as i said that catchment area is around 350 000 people and to this point that's the amount of ambulance traffic that we have there and this is a ballpark for post falls could there be marginally larger in this area that's possible but certainly from our experience It's not a large volume. It's less than 1% of our volume that comes to the hospital every month.

Okay. That's it for me for now.

Mr. Mayor, just a couple of quick questions, kind of following up on what Council Member Strader was saying. When you talked about ambulance response, you stated that generally they're not showing up with lights and sirens. But that's determined by 80 County paramedics policy and procedure, not you. And when they do show up, no lights and no sirens, they still have opticons and they're still disrupting traffic because they do it every day on Eagle Road getting into St. Luke's Hospital. So we're still talking about ambulance trips that are going to disrupt one of our busiest intersections in the city getting into this facility. I just want to make sure we're clear on that, that we don't think that they're just following the rules of the road. I don't know an ambulance, and I know I've got lieutenants sitting over here. They don't have to have lights and sirens on to activate opticons to break intersections because that's what they do every day getting into St. Luke's Hospital. I just want to make sure that's clear and on the table, that the fact that there's no lights and siren makes no difference to me. That's how the paramedics work in the ambulances.

I may, I believe that the lights and sirens were more into discussion of the safety of arrival the impetus of how quickly they're coming and, but I think the bigger focus is on the number. In a busy practice like St luke's just down the road we're talking over 20 ambulances a day. And so we're talking here, 12 ambulances in a month. And so that's, I think, what we have discussed to this point.

So help me understand. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, follow up. I'm in a paramedic ambulance. Are the paramedics now going to ask you if you want to come to your place or go to St. Luke's Hospital? I'm not sure how the current way business is done in this valley all of a sudden changes so that you then become an option to where someone's going to go.

If I may, I can speak to Kootenai County. And the patient does, when they are picked up, they may say, I want to go to Kootenai. I want to go to Post Falls. I want to go to this hospital or that hospital. It's up to the paramedic to then assess the situation. If they feel there's a critical life threat that's better served at a different facility, they'll say, you know, I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, we can't take you there. That is not the appropriate place for you with the condition that you seem to be presenting with.

Mister mayor that's right have you already worked out agreements with 80 County paramedics to how that process will take place here in this valley.

That would certainly be part of the plan moving forward, yes, but it has not been done to this point correct.

Mister mayor has a lot.

kind of along those lines are you at all concerned about u-turns right in right out silverstone detours um seems to me that we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and and there's no easy way to get there um We're relocating an entire roadway. We don't follow what our UDC says to have direct access. So help me smooth out some of those edges on that square peg if you could.

So I would have to defer to Kelly. I'm not an expert on traffic flow. I've practiced emergency medicine for over 25 years, so.

City Council Chambers, City Council Chambers, Councilman with luck, I think the biggest answer to your question, there would be that these are all public roads and dimensional requirements and so our emergency vehicles are going to be able to access these roads and and navigate them like they would anywhere else in the valley. City Council Chambers, City Council Chambers, they'll be owned and maintained by a chd as well.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor. Mayor Mrakas, Maybe a medical question then. Mayor Mrakas, And thanks for being here, Dr seeley appreciate you coming down. Mayor Mrakas, Our udc does define hospitals to do many of the things that I think you plan to do here to have the 24 seven access to emergency care, but our definition of a hospital in our udc includes air transport facilities. We haven't waived that requirement. Do you anticipate having air transport facilities at this hospital?

I would have to leave that up to the planning, but my understanding is that there is not air traffic at this facility.

Council, additional questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor Abigail germain.

Hello again.

Good evening. Again, for the record, Abby Germain with Elam & Burke, 251 East Front Street, Boise, Idaho, 83702. I'm here in front of you this evening on this item on behalf of my client, the Idaho Association of Health Plans. Just as a couple housekeeping matters, here with me this evening are several members of the Idaho Association of Health Plans, Mike Reynoldson with Blue Cross of Idaho, Norm Varen with Pacific Source, and John Larkin with Select Health. They can certainly answer any questions that the council may have as it relates to the association's interest in this development and this project. I would also like to refer the council to our formal comments that were submitted on September 3rd. Those outline our full arguments as to why we believe that these applications, plural, cannot be approved based on Meridian City Code. If the council has not had an opportunity to review those comments, I know it was a long weekend this last weekend, I would certainly encourage the council to not make a final decision on this application until you've had a chance to review those comments. i know my time is limited here this evening so i'm not going to be able to touch on everything that's included in that in those comments we are respectfully requesting that the city council deny the application this evening for a conditional use permit and a preliminary plot we believe that the evidence in the record shows that the application as presented does not meet meridian city code Again, our formal comments outlined numerous concerns, but based on time, I'd like to just focus on a couple main issues with these applications. I believe that the first and main issue as it relates to Meridian City Code is access. Staff has already addressed this, the applicant has already addressed this, but under the specific use criteria of Meridian City Code 1143-22, it expressly states that if the hospital provides emergency care, the location shall have direct access on an arterial street i want to emphasize for the council that the requirement is a shall it is mandatory it is not optional i know that the applicant has discussed a waiver of this requirement however nowhere in meridian city code is the is there the ability to waive this requirement There's certainly the ability to waive certain requirements or provide variances for certain requirements, but those requirements typically relate to setbacks or dimensional standards within the code. There is no ability to waive the requirement of a specific use standard in Meridian City Code. Again, I want to emphasize that the applicant has not denied that this criteria can be met, but instead has pointed to how ACHD will not permit direct access. However, just because ACHD won't permit direct access does not mean that that requirement is somehow waived. I believe what this means is that This specific use, because it is a hospital, is not suited for this site. A development agreement and prior approvals already exist for this site for a different use. Those, I would assume, those uses that were initially proposed met the code of Meridian City Code, met the criteria of Meridian City Code. This use, however, as a hospital does not, and that's based on the specific use criteria. I wanna just touch really quickly on a couple comments that were made by the council. I think it is important, the comment and the question that was made as it relates to ambulance trip numbers for this facility. That information has not been supported by any third party analysis or any other data as it relates to the geographical area that this site has proposed, the Treasure Valley. All of that information is based, as Councilmember Strader mentioned, on the Post Falls facility. So we do not have information to support the number of ambulance trips. In addition, I don't believe that the applicant has addressed why a traffic impact study has not been done for this application. I think it is important that a traffic impact study be done for this facility. In addition to the fact that there are issues with the specific use standards and direct access to an arterial street, There's also comments from ACHD about the capacity of Overland and Eagle Road. ACHD's comments are that these roads are already built out to capacity. So in addition to the fact that we have access issues per the code, we also have capacity issues, and those have not been addressed in any form by, for example, a traffic impact study. In addition to the specific criteria of a hospital found in Meridian City Code, the applicant and the application must also meet the criteria of a conditional use permit. The second criteria of a conditional use permit states that the proposed use must be in accord with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Title 11. What that means is that in order to grant a conditional use permit, as you all know, it has to meet the code. In this case, it can't meet the code because of the access issue. I would also submit to you it can't meet the code based on other factors related to health, safety, and welfare based on the capacity of the arterial streets Eagle and Overland and where this site is located. Likewise, finding number five of the conditional use permit requires that the proposed use will be served adequately by services such as streets. Again, that is another criteria of the conditional use permit that does not seem to be met by this application and the nature of the proposed use. Lastly, condition or criteria finding six of a conditional use permit requires that the city council find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Idaho Association of Health Plans via our formal comments submitted to the council has provided substantial evidence of the potential negative economic impacts to the community of having this in this entity established in Meridian. As I mentioned, there are several members of the Association who can specifically speak to some of those concerns, and they are available if the Council has any questions. In summary, and I know I'm running out of time, the Association, I think, would just like to emphasize there are no way opposed to development. What the concern is with this application is that it does not meet the code. And there is no ability, as it's been suggested, to waive that requirement. The requirement is specific. It is mandatory. It uses the language of shall. Any of the language within the code that relates to waivers or variances relates to specific items and specific circumstances. Again, dimensional aspects, setbacks. It does not state that any kind of waiver can be provided for a specific use standard. Based on that, council members, the association would ask that you deny the applications. And I am happy to stand for any questions. And again, there are members of the association here to address other concerns or aspects of the project of the council desires.

Thank you. Council, any questions?

Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Roberts.

Mr. Mayor, Abby, thank you for spending most of your evening with us.

Thanks for putting up with me twice.

So is it my understanding correctly that the association is not opposed to this hospital, just opposed to this being a potentially inappropriate location for this hospital?

Mr. Mayor, council member, I think that is an accurate statement. I think the association has concerns about the operational nature of that entity in general. Again, I would refer to the comments we submitted. There's some significant information as it relates to that aspect in those comments. But to answer your question directly, yes, the concern is this facility in this location and based on the code requirements.

Counseling additional questions. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else sign up. I'm sorry, no one else signed up, but there is Mr. Calvin raising his hand online.

Okay. Scala if you'd like to unmute and be recognized for three minutes.

William Galvin, 1776 Yorktown Road, Houston, Texas, 77056. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm William Galvin, again, and I'm Associate Legal Counsel here at NewTex, who operates Post Falls Hospital and would do the same for any potential hospital here in Meridian. We submitted a written application. I'll step back. I apologize for my congestion right now. We submitted a written comment to the council immediately prior to this hearing in response to the Idaho Association of Pulse Plans. Very recent public comment on the same. IAHP Council submitted comments, as they said, to the council on September 3rd. They were only made available publicly on the city's website this morning at approximately 9.37 a.m. Mountain Time. Despite the limited time to review and respond, we wanted to ensure the council had our position on the record before final deliberations. And we respectfully request that our letter be entered to recognize as part of the official record. I'm happy to read the full letter into the record now, or in the interest of time, we ask that it be entered and submitted for the council's review. I'll defer to the council on their preference here.

Thank you counsel any questions. And thank you. Is there anybody else present who'd like to provide if you'd like to come forward. Say your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Mike Renaldson. I'm an employee of Blue Cross of Idaho. We're located at 3000 East Pine Avenue right here in Meridian, Idaho. And I'd like to testify today related to the provision in Meridian City Code as to whether the proposed use will or will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. I'm going to have to take you a little bit through some federal government minutiae on my way to get to the end here. So I apologize a little bit in advance if I get a little bit too in the weeds.

In two minutes and 20 seconds.

So the federal government implemented the No Surprises Act in 2022, and the intent was to eliminate surprise billing. Blue Cross of Idaho members of the Idaho Association of Health Plans oppose surprise billing. What was not anticipated in the passage of that law was that there would be entities that would exploit provisions in that law to get elevated pricing and reimbursement for their services, specifically emergency services that that law spoke to. For example, emergency charges for a sprained right knee, the market rate in Idaho is $1,704. freestanding for-profit emergency rooms, of which there is one in Idaho, submits a bill for $8,588, five times the market value. So our experience with Post Falls ER and Hospital, the same owner that's making this proposal here, is they refuse to contract with any insurer in Idaho. they send 100% of their emergency room claims to the federal government and get five, 10, 15 times the reimbursement rate as to the market rate in that community. What that does is that drives up the cost of healthcare for an entire community and frankly for an entire state. The patient may not see it the day that they go into the emergency room or tell the ambulance that's where they wanna go, but they do see it the following year when they receive the renewal for their health insurance premium. The reimbursements that take place in one year get figured in to the cost of that insurance the next year. So they get their surprise bill one year later. It's something that needs to end. It's something that drives up healthcare costs for employers, for individuals, for entire communities. The cost of healthcare is on everyone's mind, and this is detrimental to the community of Meridian.

Wait hit the hit the timer mark. Council any questions? Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to provide testimony on this item? Councilwoman Schroeder.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question for Bill Nery.

Mr. Nery.

Will, does the code say shall help me with that Okay, and so, is there any real discretion around that then there is not that's very straightforward for me, thank you.

We have one person who already has testified is raising their hand again this Council wish to hear from that individual again. Okay, then we'll ask you to come up and close.

Thank you again Mayor, Council members for hearing our application tonight. I'd like to start just touching on that emergency access on arterial roads, one more time. I would like to point out the St. Luke's Meridian location. Their emergency department is located towards the back of their site and does not have direct access on an arterial road. As you can see on the screen above, their access is about 1,000 feet back on a private road in order to make it to their first driveway into their emergency department, whereas ours showed around 500 feet. So we're over half the length. That the existing St luke's facility is providing we believe whether or not there's code interpretations that play into it that these are functionally the same. arrangements as patrons are exiting and arriving to the site. Um, also on the topic of traffic, the prior uses contemplated in the existing DA were restaurant and retail uses. I think we can all agree that the traffic implications for uses like that are far more than they would be for this micro hospital site. We did not do a traffic impact study because we and both our as well as our jurisdictional partners agreed that the anticipated traffic to this site was not high enough to necessitate one. um these kinds of projects require a lot of information and we do our best to provide that information when we can without having a crystal ball so we try to provide that information when we can and then we also rely on our jurisdictional partners like ACHD like the City of Meridian to help us achieve a project that is well suited for the broader community I'll bring back Dr. Seeley to touch on some of the insurance complaints that were noted in public testimony as well. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor and council members, thank you for the time again. I would just say that the letter that was submitted prior to the meeting addresses a number of the concerns with regards to the IDR process that's being referenced by Mike, the independent dispute resolution. And that is not a loophole. That is part of the No Surprise Act, Federal No Surprise Act 2021. And it is there to safeguard the patients, from receiving surprise bills if they're out of network for emergency medical care. It's there to protect insurers from providers providing outlandish bills, and it's also there to protect the providers from receiving inadequate reimbursement as well. And the reason I say that is that the independent dispute resolution is a system where the arbitrator is appointed by a neutral party. the insurance company presents their case, the provider presents their case, and then it's up to the arbitrator to make that decision. And so, as I said, that is something that is provided for in the federal law, and it's what Idaho has chosen to use for that, to resolve those disputes accordingly, so.

and I guess I'd stand for any further questions if there are Catherine just a quick clarification if you could for me I understood that you your facility does not accept insurance is that correct that is not correct sir uh Councilman we do accept insurance okay are your fees in line with every other medical place around

So we are out of network presently. We're presently in negotiations with three of the major insurers in our area and attempting to get in network. That would allow us to provide other services that presently we cannot. But what is covered under the No Surprise Act of 2021 is emergency medical care. And so we submit our claims to the insurance.

and they have the option to accept them or they can say no we don't agree with that and then we end up having to go to arbitration okay but just for clarification you accept insurance but it's an out of network acceptance that is correct you're not in network with local insurance not presently okay and how long have you been in business in post falls i know we've been open for two years now

And you're not in line with any insurance in network after we are presently in negotiations with three of our major insurers presently, but we do not have a network deal at this point Okay, thank you.

answer additional questions. I guess just maybe one question for you, since you brought up the slide. The code says a hospital shall take access, not emergency room shall take access, correct?

I believe it's a hospital requiring emergency care. Maybe Linda can help me confirm that. Actually, I have it in my slide right here.

And I technically don't know if St Luke's considers that entire facility their hospital or only the back their hospital because it's clear that the front takes access. So i'm trying to understand if you're saying that their hospital doesn't take access under the code and you're trying to say that only takes access. You make a similar argument, I need you to be precise in the you're saying that they don't meet our code.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. So the UDC code is directly copied on the screen here. So it says hospitals providing emergency care shall have direct access on an arterial. So I guess my interpretation of the St. Luke's Meridian location is that with such a broad facility, you have to consider where the emergency care is actually taking place.

Do you enter the code or do you want to enter our code? I guess that's fair you code doesn't have a lot of description when it comes to um yeah I just I just want to be clear if you were you're claiming that the first part of their building is not the hospital only the back side is the hospital I'd be curious to unravel that but I think it's clear that the facility takes access off Eagle Road yes I think that's a fair interpretation I think

When I think of what the intent of this code provision would be, it would be that the hospital is visible based on the arterial roadways, from the arterial roadways, and that patrons can access the the emergency department and get to where they need to go. And I think in this case of the micro hospital, we are providing both of those things. If there's other things that this group thinks that code needs to address, I'm happy to answer.

And that's saying if we want to talk about what intent is, I would think intent means you have a light with easy access, right in, right out. U-turns don't seem to be. I'm one of the few that lives in South Marin. I traverse this intersection all the time. I'll be honest with you. I can think of no worse place to put any type of health care place that on this corner with that access even with the slightly improved location that doesn't even align with the you know even if you lined up with the road on the other side where you could potentially put a light in to help but it doesn't even do that so it's not in my mind when i look at like connectivity and road network there would be an opportunity to try to improve and make some sort of, you know, emergency access light. I'm not going to say ACHD would even approve it, but it seems to be lacking all the things that you would want to get to a location, in my mind. But that's just, if we want to get into intent, I think better access is the intent more so than anything else, which unfortunately this intersection really lacks from my perspective. And that's saying someone that tries to get their family to Taco Bell has a hard time, can't even access Taco Bell and you can't get out of Taco Bell on the other side. The only way that this area actually functions well is down at the light. The access is then to the rest of that entire area. I wish that there was more light control traffic in this entire four sections of this area so that people could access the businesses in these areas. Mayor Mrakas, I don't know what would go good here, I don't know would want to go good here with this current access, but the access should go over the creek and connect back in to get to the light, in my opinion, long term for this property to be a well integrated piece into our area. Mayor Mrakas, My two cents.

Thank you.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr mayor. Mayor Mrakas, that's one of our habits, Mr Mayor, and if I can piggyback off of you, because that's my district and so i've been sitting here thinking about i'm through that intersection multiple times a day. Mayor Mrakas, and thinking how difficult it would be to even you know, a few times 12 times a month have two major intersections potentially shut down for up up to con is that the right. to have those intersections with ambulances going through, because that is one of our busiest intersections in the city. And then again, if you're coming, if you're headed east on Overland, you're gonna shut down, again, the Silverstone intersection in trying to do a U-turn and get to you. And so I was concerned about that. But then even more concerned when my son was young, multiple times I had to drive him to the ER and that's the intersection I go through. And when it's backed up in the morning with people trying to get on the freeway or at the evening when it's five o'clock traffic everywhere, it's just a really, really difficult intersection and area. And I am just not comfortable thinking that that's a great place for emergency care.

Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, one last question. You said that it's only 500 feet from the arterial, which is if someone would be lucky enough to use Rackham Way. But the way I see traffic backed up on Overland and Eagle, most days they're going to have to use Silverstone. And that's going to be several thousand feet, not 500. Do you have that measurement?

Councilman Overton, I do not have that measurement.

Okay.

Thank you. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor?

Councilman Schrader.

We've heard from everything we asked for public testimony, and I think it's time, so I move that we close the public hearing on this item.

Second.

Have a motion second to close the public hearing. Any discussion? No. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Yes, seven. The public hearing is closed.

uh mr mayor councilman happy to kick us off um not interested in getting involved in a hospital turf war uh of any type um the economic arguments seem important but they're not really something that's a primary driver of the decision for me i think it's very straightforward um really the the bottom line is our code requires hospitals providing emergency care to have direct access on an arterial you do not have that unfortunately i think a lot of the commentary from the city council hopefully helps provide you guidance in the future in terms of this location is a really challenged intersection for us from a traffic perspective uh i think that there's good reason for this in our code our city attorney has confirmed that the language in our code includes the word shall which i i think is is pretty straightforward so with that after considering all staff applicants and public testimony i move to deny file number age 2026-0011 as presented in today's hearing the reason that it does not meet the requirement in the udc 114322 that this hospital providing emergency care does not have direct access on an arterial roadway second have a motion a second to deny h2026-0011 is there discussion on the motion mr mayor councilman overton

Just a short amount of discussion before we take the vote. My almost 40 years total time with the city since I first started, I've worked on a lot of policies and procedures and it was clear as a bell to me, no matter which one we are looking at, that shall was mandatory and should as advisory. And when you see the word shall, it's not open for discussion. And I agree with the motion maker. I would not support this for that reason, I think the 500 feet from an arterial roadway is not. Accurate I think it's going to be several thousand feet based upon traffic conditions at that location. So i'll be supporting the motion maker.

Mayor Mrakas, Mr Mr just to make clear, for the record, what we would be bringing back to you as a denial of the motion to the men to development agreement for their inability to comply with our udc. Mayor Mrakas, Therefore, the other applications B and C conditionally use permanent preliminary plot, but also be denied because the development agreement isn't modified is that my understanding.

Mr. Mayor, I'm always grateful to Mr. Neri for keeping me on the straight and narrow. That is correct. Thank you.

I'm always grateful to Mr. Neri as a seconder of Strader's motions.

Is there further discussion? If not, call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Strader? Aye. Woodlock?

Aye.

Little Roberts?

Aye.

Overton?

Aye. All eyes motion carries and the motion is agreed to, and thank you have a good evening. Next time up is item 10 which is origins number 26 dash 2138 as correct to read this ordinance by title.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance annexing lots 7, 21, and 22 of the amended Magic View subdivision as depicted in the map exhibit. Rezoning 17.27 acres of central property from RUT to R8, R15, and CN zoning districts. Directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps. and all official maps depicting the boundaries in the zoning districts of the city of Meridian in accordance with the ordinance. Provided that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law, repealing conflicting ordinances and providing an effective date.

Thank you. Council, you've heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody who would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion?

Mr. Mayor. Councilman Locke. I move we approve ordinance number 262138. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve ordinance number 26-2138. We are joined again by Councilman Kavanagh. I'll ask a quick call to roll.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Kavanagh? Strader? Aye. Woodlock? Aye.

Little Roberts? Aye. Overton?

Aye.

For I was one of saying the item is agreed to. Next time up. They concession.

Mister mayor councilman overton I move that we go into executive session pride of code 74 dash 2, 0, 6, subsection, 1, F. I have a motion second to an executive session.

Is there a discussion.

Mister mayor councilman need to amend that motion. will also be under executive session for 74 dash 2, 0, 6, 1, J. And 74 dash 2, 0, 6, 8. I can concur.

I have a motion and second concur. Is there a discussion?

If not, call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Kavanagh? Aye. Schroeder? Aye. Woodlock? Aye. Little-Roberts? Aye.

Overton? Aye. All ayes. Motion carries. We'll go to executive session.