City Council - Regular Meeting

There will be one change to tonight's agenda on the consent agenda. We'll be moving item 28 off the consent agenda for discussion. And with that change, I move that we adopt the agenda.

Mr. Mayor. Councilman Overton. The consent agenda, we have one change, which is moving item 28 off of the consent agenda for discussion. Other than that, I move that we approve the consent agenda for the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.

question either for Mr. or Captain Stokes, and it really pertains to parental notification when an SRO is involved in an interview with a minor. I know that language was included, I think, in the previous contract. Obviously, there's a letter from the state superintendent that says that's supposed to occur. I know the language is pulled out of the contract. So where is that information captured? Is that in procedure and policy? Is that something that's been shared with the council? I just don't recall seeing it if it was, and I'm just trying to track where that information is housed.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. IT EXPLAINS WHY IT WAS PULLED OUT OF OUR CONTRACT BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOW BASED ON THE CHANGE IN THE STATE. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

NOT A QUESTION, JUST A COMMENT. I used to dig out some of the history every once in a while. But I remember working under the first, I spent three years as an SRO working for the city and had the first of the SRO contracts back in 1991 to 94. And they were a lot thinner. A lot more brief, less legalese, but the intent of them has always been the same, which is to develop a level playing field between the school district and the police department so we understand whose policy and procedures we're working under at each time, what responsibilities are, how things play out. Specifically, the overt

Lorelei, a great presentation. I've read through everything. I'm very supportive of what this looks to do. I think it's a great way to show off our partnership with the City of Nampa. Is there any approvals needed from Canyon County or Ada County? I know we're trying to do this from Nampa City to Meridian City, but is there any county approvals needed or state approvals needed to go across county lines?

Lorelei, just the one question on the on the proposed language for the ordinance change. Generally, I'm supportive of what we're the direction we're moving. I think it makes some sense. But when you have public utility provider, how is that defined in our code? Who would that entail potentially?

Yeah. Mr. Mayor. Yeah. I'm yeah. I'm not, I don't love the idea of, changing code for very, very specific things. But I understand why we would maybe want to do in this case. So my desire would be to avoid maybe someone reading it differently a few years down the road and opening a doorway that we didn't have. So I agree with the idea of it needs to be a request from another municipality, not from any other entity outside of that. So unless there was some compelling reason why we wanted to keep the language of public utility provider, I would prefer to keep it out so that it's a city to the ci

I tend to agree with the other council members on this. What action, if any, is going to be required by the Nampa City Council to facilitate this potential change? Have they discussed this? Do they have to take action to approve that? Have they had a chance to discuss this? And if it has been discussed, what has kind of been the general synopsis of the discussion?

Mayor Mrakas, For a quick follow up just together or liar missionary, would we be the then the last one to sign, so the developer than the city of napa then it comes back to us is that how it works. It can. Yes.

Have we done a pretty good analysis of the tenants and the types of users that are coming in? Because I know we had to put it through our model. It's all gravity fed. I just get concerned about, at some point, the limits of modeling and the unknown of adding in, for example, a super user. So just help me understand how robust the modeling was and exactly how we went about that.

I think that's a really interesting way to handle that contractually that I think works well but in practice how would that work I guess would be a question like how would we enforce that.

Yeah, that's really helpful. It sounds like a good plan, like a practical approach for it. I guess it's... I guess my only concern is just, as you know, like... really important that we model it correctly and it's a it's permanent infrastructure and so um i guess a question i would have is like globally when you look at the entirety of the capacity that needs to go through the mcdermott trunk line and the way that development has been getting approved so far do you feel that where do you feel like the risk is larger to the city of Meridian holistically for that entire sewer trunk? Do you feel

Mr. Mayor, to put a more fine point on it, if that sewer trunk line needed to extend under the interstate, and I know geologically there are challenges there, theoretically, would our entire area of impact in the southwest part of our city be able to be served by that trunk line still, I guess would be my guess.

What percentage of the total sewer capacity would this one development represent, roughly?

Probably less than 1%. Okay. Thank you. That makes me feel much more comfortable.

Can you just go back to the map as well? I mean, we have this shaped, what do you call it? Trapezoid. Did I get that right? Is it a trapezoid?

A small sliver to the north, north of Eustick, south of Cherry. Those are all, I think, five-acre lots on septic wells that are within Canyon County. And then we've been talking about future development, moving the McDermott trunk line, even, even farther to the south. Is there, this is a one-off. Is there any chance that there will be a second one-off because of any of those other properties that are east of 16th?

I understand it's difficult to change area of city impact. And I do think it would be cleaner if everything, you know, sort of to the east of Highway 16 was in the city of Meridian and everything to the west of it was just in the city of Nampa. They just logically to me would make more sense. Is that something that you all discussed with them, like the potential to sort of bifurcate the property in some way and annex in at least that east part of the property? Just because it does seem like if that county enclave ever does develop, it would need, I assume logically, would need to connect to th

I have not sought recognition yet, but I'll take the recognition. Yeah, I'm happy to make a motion that we approve the memorandum of agreement between the City of Meridian and the Meridian Development Corporation for the property transfer of 226 East Broadway Avenue. Second.

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

I move that we approve resolution 26-2606, a resolution adopting the changing fees, superseding previously adopted fees, authorizing finance department to update citywide fee schedule, and authorizing city departments to collect such fees, and providing an effective date.

A quick question. I actually had a constituent bring this up today to me. Relative to greens fees and then fees for renting a golf cart, do the golf cart fees only cover maintenance of golf carts, or is that part of also broader costs for maintaining the golf course? Their question was, you know, they don't, really the green fees only cover managing that versus the golf cart fee. So is there a way, I don't know if you can break that down, uh, how those fees cover what costs or if it's sort of all lumped into one pool and that kind of is distributed out. Just some clarification for a constituen

Move that we close the public hearing on item four. Second.

I think we've discussed it and the change in the fees I think was well grounded. With that, I move that we approve resolution number 26-2605 regarding the fall 2026 Lakeview golf course fee schedule for Meridian Parks and Recreation, authorizing them to collect such fees and providing an effective date. Second.

Seeing no other people wishing to testify, I would move that we close the public hearing on agenda item number six. Second.

seems pretty straightforward just subdividing that parcel, and so I after considering all staff applicant and public testimony I moved to approve file number sh P 2026 dash 0009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6 2026.

I don't have a question, but I did just because I think it's important to be transparent. I did want to disclose that my husband actually does work for the West Data School District. I spoke with the city attorney. I think based on his position, I don't have a conflict of interest on this, and I can, I think, weigh it and evaluate it fairly. But I just wanted to mention that. And if any fellow council members had a concern, please let me know.

Sean, thank you for the presentation. Just help me, I mean, I don't disagree with anything that's been said tonight. I'm just in my mind trying to think of where the traffics and students are coming from. And with a right-in, right-out access, any students coming from Mountain View and Renaissance are going to have to do that prayer turn in either... I'm not sure how they get around. They have to go all the way up to Franklin and then down Locust Grove. Then you have... Rocky, Hawaii, Eagle, Centennial, all coming from the north. So the ride in is not a problem for them. But when they do the r

Sort of similar question, but maybe a little different angle. I just wanted to check, I understand the sort of target schools that are going to be coming in, but is there a chance there will be kids from Renaissance that are going to be trying to walk over? And what does that look like? But I just have some, it's more of an operational question, probably. But I just had some safety concerns around that.

The quick question so that to the north of the property. The school district bought the 2 properties. IN ANTICIPATION OF EXPANDING THE CTE POTENTIALLY BECAUSE AND SONYA MAYBE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A QUESTION FOR YOU. THE CROSS ACCESS IS ALLOWED IF THERE'S THOSE PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED AS EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES OR IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT CROSS ACCESS REQUIREMENT IS AND KIND OF WHAT THE PLAN IS. I JUST WANT TO IF YOU COULD PUT A FINAL POINT ON THAT FOR ME.

And correct me if I'm wrong, this is the new annexation portion where the parking lot is going to be on the north side, which is where we want to modify the buffer to the north side. We have the cross-access agreement going to the north. But we're designing for this purpose a ride-in, ride-out off of Locust Grove. But yet we're requiring access to the north with no idea if that right in, right out would be required on whatever that parcel is that goes to the north that then has those 145 parking spaces. And I'm a little worried with this request that we could end up with 145 cars that want to

Mr. Mayor, quick follow. Councilman Overton. If I get you correctly, so this right in, right out that you'd want to construct with this parking lot would be the farthest north right in, right out, no matter how the rest of the parcels develop.

Mr. Mayor, I think we do have ACHD online if there are. with us, if we could ask that question, I'd be much appreciated.

I guess I need a little bit more clarity on the ride-in, ride-out and how we're working this. I mean, if I'm looking at this, I'm thinking, okay, if I'm taking a ride-out and I attend one of the schools that's on the north side of town, I'm immediately going to turn right on Water Tower, turn right on Atkins, and get back to Franklin Road. But if I'm at one of the schools that's on the south side of town trying to get to this, I'm very worried that they're going to be attempting those left turns into a right in, as opposed to turning on Water Tower, going down Atkins, coming back on Franklin,

Thank you, David. I appreciate that. I'm certainly not trying to be a rock blocking your path, but I know that there's not only the church on the other side of the road, but there's also another housing development that sits right across from this. Before you get to Woodbridge, that you'd then be telling them and the church that they can't turn left into their current location. They have to have a new path as well to try to get to where they live and where they go to church as well. If I'm understanding this correctly.

Could we see the property on a map just so we could get the context while we're having the discussion?

Mr. Mayor, I'll take a break here. So I know there's a way to educate, but I'm also looking at the folks that don't know they're going to have to get reeducated on how they get to and from where they live and go to church now. Also, when the candles first went up off of Locust Grove to deal with the first development that's over on the... southeast corner, those candles were looked at as a suggestion, not as a don't do this. And they were getting run over and destroyed. That's why I was really hoping we had ACHD on the line, because I'd like to know whether we're going to run it this far up Lo

While we're having this discussion, if I might add just another consideration for ACHD, and maybe this is a little far down the road, but once Idaho State University starts to build out on their vision and plan just down the road, it's going to make this an interesting segment of Locust Grove. I'm sure we'll have some discussions about traffic flow then, but I'm just wondering as we're contemplating this, if ACHD has any comments that they would add to the broader vision for this stretch with the right in, right out, left in, whatever it might be with the addition of quite a bit more potential

Don, I think I'm looking at the same thing you're talking about. So instead of being a right in, right out for the student parking lot to the north, it will be a left in, right in, right out. Correct. And the candles would extend from the intersection of Franklin and Locust Grove all the way to that left in, right in, right out?

Don, I don't know if you're able to look at a map of that area, but I believe it would block... one of the access points into the church parking lot, but not block the second one. And it wouldn't interfere with Kalispell, which would be across the street from the proposed CTE center. But my concern is, is much like what happened with the Shallow Creek apartments, is vehicles would drive past the candles and do illegal U-turns in the middle of Locust Grove to get back. It still happens today. And I'm just curious how far those candles would extend to the south on Locust Grove and what the plan

Mr. Mayor. I believe a hundred percent. I mean, especially with ISU coming in, um, I wanna make sure I'm clear here. I'm 100% supportive of this project. I'm just wary of how we best step forward to handle transportation. And I'm not convinced that candles are the best long-term solution. I think we're gonna have to put up some sort of higher medians to more direct traffic to keep people from the temptation that they can make those turnarounds, which are highly unsafe. And I'd surely like to take our chance here as a council to make that something we suggest to ACHD as they look for how this i

Just one last bit of clarification. Did I hear that buses would be able to turn left as they go north on Locust Grove? would be able to turn left and that's what you intended for a left in and everyone else would be right in and right out did i hear that correctly mr mayor and uh councilman that is that is correct that has been our plan all along in coordination with our partners like my question mr reinhardt just How do you limit just the buses to turning left and kids coming from the south? I agree with Dr. Bubb. You can educate them. You can get them to go all the way around and come from t

Linda just want to just make sure I understand quickly on all these waivers, these bullet points that you have on the handout that you gave to us. Those are all the conditions that we need to have included. As we make a motion tonight and my understanding is that applicant is supportive of all those requirements.

Seeing no other further testimony, I move that we close the public hearing for H-2026-0041. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor.

I just want to express our appreciation as myself and Council to West Ada. You guys are really good partners. I personally have a high level of trust in your planning and your long-term vision and the things that you're doing. I think you bring a lot of value to the city and to the students. especially noting how you've been able to plan for some long-term needs and some capital improvements without raising taxes and going to the taxpayers. So a lot of compliments to you and really appreciate that. Also, with four kids in the West Ada School District, I have firsthand knowledge of what's going

Although I get caught up on traffic issues, David, you well know I get very concerned about traffic, especially when we're talking about kids in schools. I think this is a tremendous opportunity to build this, make this happen in a school district. I'll continue to have concerns about traffic and how best we move them. And I would encourage, we'll have to do a lot of that talking ourselves with ACHD. I think there's even a future possibility that the entrance for the student parking can go out to Adkins and not come out to Locust Grove at all, which would eliminate traffic. 99% of my concerns.

Mr. Mayor, there's no other discussion. I'd be happy to make a motion. Prior to my motion, I would just say as a father with a teenage son, please, please be firm with these kids and tell them how they have to access this. My son has my old truck and he will run over candlesticks and anything else in between him and where he wants to go. After considering all staff applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2026-0041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2026, with the following modifications. A waiver for the removal of the requirement for cr

i do have one question counselor and i i might be wrong on my facts but is it the way it's drafted um a person who sees a pet confined without food or water for more than 24 hours is the word shall immediately contact animal control or should contact them my concern would be what's the requirement uh if someone shall versus should does that make a difference legally in terms of their liability for being charged for a misdemeanor if they don't report it if they're aware of this i'm just trying to understand if it's if we're overly strict in how we're requiring someone who's aware of an animal b

Yeah, and I don't think that would ever be the intent. I know the purpose is to ask people to do that, but if I'm being honest, I was not very familiar with the law or the ordinances about this prior to being on council, so I wouldn't expect the average person to understand it. But I don't want to create as a A situation where a citizen who's just unaware is legally within the crosshairs of being charged criminally. So I don't know if the, as not being an attorney, I don't know if the word shall versus should is the right term. I'm a little concerned that If the law says they shall do it and t

You know the the shall versus may is actually a significant change. My read on anything that says shall is, you know, that you would interpret it as such, and that someone you are creating a liability by which a prosecutor would either have to drop the case and decide, make it an affirmative choice not to prosecute, if that person were guilty of that. So it does give me pause when we do that because, again, we're talking about a statute in law where when it comes to animals, a lot of people have animals. And I don't think that very many people understand the laws around it. So I probably could

Again, I'm probably okay with staff to come back with what we have. I just want to note on the record my concerns.

With that comment, I move that we close the public hearing.

Move that we approve ordinance 26-2138. Second.