City Council

FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ The City Council of the City of Idaho Falls met in Special Council Meeting (Council Work Session), Tuesday, February 23, 2015, at the City Council Chambers in the City Annex Building located at 680 Park Avenue in Idaho Falls, Idaho at 3:00 p.m. There were present: Mayor Rebecca L. Noah Casper Councilmember Thomas Hally Councilmember Ed Marohn Councilmember Sharon D. Parry Councilmember Michael Lehto Councilmember Barbara Ehardt Those Absent: Councilmember Dee Whittier Also present: Brad Cramer, Planning and Building Director Randy Fife, City Attorney Mark McBride, Police Chief Kerry McCullough, Public Information Officer Chandra Witt, General Services Administrator Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director George Morrison, Planning Commission Lisa Farris, Grants Administrator Patti Reines, GIS Analyst/Planner, Planning and Building Division Brent McLane, Current Planner Kerry Beutler, Assistant Planning and Building Director Dave Hanneman, Fire Chief Michael Kirkham, Assistant City Attorney Luke Ramseth, The Post Register Rosemarie Anderson, City Clerk Mayor Casper called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m., by beginning with the Mayor and City Council Reports. Mayor Casper handed out a list of items to be considered at the February 26, 2015 Regular Council Meeting. Councilmember Lehto stated that he did not have anything for this meeting. Councilmember Ehardt stated that she was part of a meeting with Byron Wiscombe and Brad Christensen from the City of Ammon regarding the Hitt Road and Target ingress/egress. She did not feel that this meeting was very productive, and requested that they meet with Chris Canfield and Kent Fugal from the Engineering Department the following day. Mr. Christensen attended the meeting, and felt that the discussion was much better. On another day, Mr. Wiscombe joined her with Chris Canfield and Kent Fugal from the Engineering Department for further explanation. Councilmember Ehardt stated that progress is being made on this issue.  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Councilmember Parry stated that the “Memorandum of Understanding Committee” with the City of Ammon has not met for months. It is time to move forward with this discussion. Councilmember Marohn stated that it makes sense to use the Joint Task Agreement concept that was used for the Hitt Road Expansion Project is a good way to move forward with the maintenance of Hitt Road. The Idaho Falls Public Library and the Humanities Council have joined together for a series on the Viet Nam War. Posters will be available for more information on the subject. Councilmember Hally stated that Snake River Landing is expanding 9-1/2 Acres to building 230 nice apartments. As there is lava rock in the area, the Idaho Falls Redevelopment Agency may need to become involved. The Fire Chief appeared to further review and explain the following item: 1. RFQ Process and the Committee’s Selection of an Architect/Engineer Firm: The Fire Chief submitted the following letter of explanation: City of Idaho Falls February 18, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM:Dave Hanneman, Fire Chief SUBJECT: RFQ ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION The published and outlined RFQ process was completed to select an Architect/Engineering Firm to assist the City of Idaho Falls Fire Department design for the replacement fire station. A committee was formed by the Fire Chief that drew expertise from several elected officials and City of Idaho Falls Fire Department personnel. Through the selection review, interviews and scoring process, the selection committee has determined CRSA Architecture, Principal in Charge Kevin DeKold, to be the firm that designs the future City of Idaho Falls Fire Station. The award winning team’s expertise, experience with fire stations and use of technology is the right choice for the City of Idaho Falls. The Fire Department, following committee selections of CRSA, now asks for Council approval to begin the negotiation process to develop a project contract that will be presented to Council for approval. s/ Dave Hanneman Following a brief discussion regarding the process, the City Council gave approval for the Fire Department to move forward with the negotiation process to develop a project contract that will be presented to City Council in the near future for consideration. The Fire Chief stated that the modeling for the site location will be completed within one week. An Executive Session will need to be held regarding the site selection for the new Fire Station. The Police Chief appeared to review and further explain the following items:  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 1. Police Building Plan: The Police Chief presented the following PowerPoint Presentation regarding a new Police Building: Slide 1 Idaho Falls Police Building – Council Work Session Discussion Slide 2 Why does the City of Idaho Falls need a new Police Department Headquarters? Slide 3 Original building constructed in 1977:  Building is owned by Bonneville County.  The City of Idaho Falls has an indefinite lease on a portion of the building, approximately 13,000 square feet.  The City provides utilities at an average annual cost of about $85,000.00. Slide 4 Law Enforcement Building is not community friendly. Slide 5 Law Enforcement Building is not reflective of today’s emphasis on professionalism and community policing. Slide 6 Property Condition Survey:  The report estimated that it would cost approximately $750,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 to correct the deficiencies identified.  That does not correct the space deficiency experienced currently. Slide 7 Facility Needs Assessment:  Conducted in 2007 by Alderson, Karst, and Mitro, Architects, a local architectural firm.  To determine the required size to meet the needs of the IFPD through the year 2040.  To determine the cost of such a facility. Slide 8 Facility Needs Assessment:  “The existing facilities can best be characterized as inadequate to serve the needs of the existing department.”  “It would not be cost effective to modify the existing structure to meet today’s standards.” Slide 9 Space at a premium:  26,855 total square feet needed for today (2007) vs.  11,230 square feet of usable space at present.  53,220 square feet needed based on 2040 growth projections. Slide 10 New Police Facility Estimates (2008):  New Building $6,402,030.00  Equipment and Furnishings $1,254,145.00  Site Development $ 617,035.00  Land and Contingency $1,240,982.00  2008 Estimated Total $9,514,193.00 Slide 11 And finally, a new facility will:  Be modern, functional and safe  Present a positive image and be community friendly  Will allow space for future needs and technology Slide 12 Moving Forward –  Joint Facility/Compound Discussion: o Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office o Idaho State Police  Funding Sources: o Ideas  Dedicated funds (i.e., Liquor Tax Annual Allocation, ½ new growth money, Urban Renewal District, Bond)  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Slide 13 New Building Project Timeline Approximation: Phase 1: Steps Time Needed 1. Identify and document current facility problems Done 2. Form a “Police Internal Planning Team”, includes Chief and designees 1 Month 3. Obtain political support with Mayor and City Council Ongoing 4. Form a “Building Committee”, i.e., community members, City officials, and police officers to 1 Month generate community support. 5. Conduct a current needs analysis/cost estimate. (Cost was approximately $10,000.00 in 3 Months 2007) Slide 14 New Building Project Timeline Approximation: Phase 2 Steps Time Needed 1. Evaluate site/facility options currently available. (Build vs. Remodel) 3 Months 2. Establish community support through presentations, brochures, tours, and media. Utilize the (all Phase 2, 3, and Building Committee. 4) 3. Select and hire a Bond Consultant (6 months prior to Bond Election) to conduct surveys and 6 Months assist in marketing strategies (cost was about $5,800.00 in $2007). 4. Hold Bond Election (Must be held in May or November. May is preferred as more attention Election Day goes to candidates in November). Must pass with 2/3 majority. Slide 15 Approximate total time from beginning to completion and occupancy is 45 months assuming weather cooperates and minimal amount of change orders during design and construction. Sample Timeline:  Phase 1 – April-July 2015  Phase 2 – September 2015 – May 2016  Phase 3 – June 2016 – September 2018  Phase 4 – October 2018 – January 2019 Slide 16 Property Location:  Identify location: o Area to be considered:  Downtown  Out of Downtown  Access to Highways  Near Jail The Police Chief indicated that the deficiencies involved with the current Law Enforcement Building are health related. The air flow, ventilation system, and air conditioner are in deplorable condition. There are also privacy issues between the criminals and the victims, due to there being such small quarters. The Police Chief stated, further, that he has had a conversation with the Idaho State Police, as well as with the Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office, regarding the possibility of a combined facility. All entities were in support of a joint facility. The location for such a facility may be an issue. Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office would like a satellite office in the north part of Idaho Falls, while the Idaho State Police would like a facility that is close to highways or to the interstate. A combined facility would include a joint compound and training facility. The Police Chief stated that he is also open to a remodeled building. 2. Traffic School: The Police Chief provided the Idaho State Code regarding Traffic Safety Education Program – Fees, as follows: TITLE 50 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 3 POWERS  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 50-336. TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM -- FEES. (1) Cities may by ordinance elect to offer a traffic safety education program to all drivers issued an infraction citation by a city law enforcement officer for a moving violation not involving a collision. Citations allowing the traffic safety education program alternative shall only be issued pursuant to section 49-1501, Idaho Code, and as permitted by this section. Such traffic safety education program shall be for the purpose of educating drivers in traffic safety concepts. Drivers qualified under this section who desire to pay the fixed penalty and court costs in lieu of appearing in court on the citation may also elect to attend a traffic safety education program offered by a city under this section as an alternative to receiving violation points and insurance rating charges as provided in subsection (6) of this section. At the time of issuance of the citation, drivers shall elect whether they wish to attend the program and, if so, the citing officer shall record the election in the uniform citation. The citing officer shall provide to the driver a written notice of the available times, locations and the cost of the program or a written notice identifying a telephone number or internet website address where such information can be obtained. The driver shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance of the citation to complete the traffic safety education program. A driver electing to attend the program shall pay the fixed penalty and court costs for the citation to the clerk of the court as provided in the citation and pay the program fee, if any, separately to the city at or before the time of attendance at the program. Any person who fails to complete the offered traffic safety education program within the forty-five (45) days after voluntarily electing to attend will not receive the relief provided in subsection (6) of this section. Before issuing a citation allowing the traffic safety education program alternative, the citing officer shall ensure that the driver is not disqualified under subsection (2) of this section. (2) The traffic safety education program option allowed under subsection (1) of this section is not available to: (a) Any driver holding a commercial driver's license or any person driving a commercial motor vehicle; or (b) Any driver having received within the last three (3) years relief from violation points under subsection (6) of this section or having received a point reduction as provided in rules of the Idaho department of transportation for completing any defensive driving or driver safety course. (3) If the city imposes a traffic safety education program fee, such fee shall not exceed twenty- five dollars ($25.00). (4) If the city collects a program fee from a driver disqualified from the traffic safety education program alternative, the city shall refund the program fee to the driver no later than ten (10) days following the discovery of the error. If the driver has already completed the program, the city shall, no later than ten (10) days following the discovery of the error, so notify the clerk of the court and the driver and shall advise the driver that the relief provided in subsection (6) of this section is not available and shall pay to the driver twenty-five dollars ($25.00) as liquidated damages for the error, in addition to refunding the program fee. (5) The city clerk or other authorized city official for the city in which the citation was issued shall within fifteen (15) days of the completion of the traffic safety education program by the cited driver transmit verification of the completion to the clerk of the county in which the citation was issued. (6) When a person has successfully completed a traffic safety education program for an infraction citation, the infraction shall not result in violation point counts as prescribed in section 49- 326, Idaho Code, nor shall the infraction be deemed to be a moving violation for the purpose of establishing rates of motor vehicle insurance charged by a casualty insurer.  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ (7) The Idaho supreme court shall establish such rules as deemed necessary to implement the provisions of this section. Convictions: The Idaho Transportation Department’s Driver Services Section receives records for moving violations that occur both in the State of Idaho and in other states plus Canada. Each minor moving violation receives a point system value from one to four points, depending on the seriousness of the violation. Convictions and points assessed are entered on each driver’s record and points are maintained for three (3) years after the conviction date. Warning Letters: As a courtesy, drivers will be notified by a warning letter when they accumulate eight (8) to eleven (11) points in a twelve-month period, fourteen (14) to seventeen (17) points in a twenty-four month period, and twenty (20) to twenty-three (23) points in a thirty-six month period. When drivers accumulate this many points, they risk a driver’s license suspension. Defensive Driving Course (DDC): Once every three (3) years, drivers may reduce their point total by three points if they complete an approved defensive driving course (DDC). The course must be taken before a suspension for accumulation of points takes place. A point reduction can only be applied on an Idaho driver’s license record. A list of Defensive Driving Course providers may be found at DefensiveDriving.htm. Traffic Safety Education Course (TSC): Once every three (3) years, drivers may reduce their total point accumulation by completing a City- sponsored Traffic Safety Education Course (TSC). This course must be offered to and accepted by the driver at roadside at the time of citation. Upon completion of the course, it will remove the number of points associated with the citation from the driver’s record. Not all cities will opt to have such a program and, for those that do, the course is offered at the discretion of the law enforcement officer at the time of the stop. NOTE: A driver is only allowed one point reduction on their driving record within a 3-year period regardless of what type of course is completed. Completion of a DDC or TSC DOES NOT REMOVE convictions from the driving record. The completion of a DDC or TSC will have no effect on any CDL disqualifying action. DEFENSIVE DRIVING/ACCIDENT PREVENTION COURSES APPROVED FOR 3-POINT REDUCTION AND/OR INSURANCE DISCOUNT (March 2014) Please Note: Costs for defensive driving/accident prevention courses are set by the provider and can vary widely. Tuition can range from around $18.00 to $60.00, and in some cases the initial tuition fee may not include the cost of a certificate. Course Provider Phone Class Locations AARP Driver Safety Program 1-888-227-7669 Call for statewide locations or http://www.aarp.org/drive/online Ace Driving School (208) 479-4858 Pocatello All American Home Study 1-800-240-1110 http://www.allamericanhomestudy.com American Safety Council 1-800-771-2255 http://www.IdahoInternetClass.com Back to Basics Traffic School 1-800-508-0868 http://www.backtobasicstrafficschool.com Bruce’s Defensive Driving Course 208-904-1012 Pocatello College of Western Idaho/National Safety Council (208) 562-2050 Nampa  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ College of Western Idaho/Truck Driving School (208) 562-2050 http://cwidaho.cc/defensivedriving/ A Comedy Defensive Driving – Course by Improv 1-800-660-8908 http://www.MyImprov.com/ Drive Defensive Idaho Traffic School (208) 368-9909 http://www.drivedefensiveidaho.com Drive Safe Today 1-800-991-0310 http://www.drivesafetoday.com DrivingUniversity.com 1-877-937-4846 http://www.drivinguniversity.com Excel Driving – XLdriving.com (208) 371-3869 Boise Gem County Driving Academy (208) 794-0891 http://gcda2006.blogspot.com Go To Traffic School.com 1-888-329-7069 http://www.gototrafficschool.com Idaho Safety Council (Online) (208) 201-1829 http://www.idahosafetycouncil.com and http://www.tsc.id.com IdriveSafely.com 1-800-723-1955 http://www.idrivesafely.com/Idaho/ La Pier & Associates (208) 754-4643 Eastern Idaho 911 Driving School (509) 324-0911 & Spokane 888-440-0911 NTSI – National Traffic Institute 1-800-588-6874 Boise and Twin Falls NTSI Online – National Traffic Safety Institute 1-800-88-6874 http://www.ntsi.com Online Traffic School Inc. 1-877-972-4665 http://www.idahodriver.com Safe2Drive 1-800-763-1297 http://www.Safe2Drive.com Traffic101.com 1-800-373-7313 http://www.traffic101.com Traffic School Online, Inc. 1-800-800-3579 http://www.trafficschoolonline.com On-line Approved Courses $14.50 A brief discussion was held regarding the implementation of a Traffic School, as was provided before within the Police Department. The Police Chief indicated that the Traffic School provided interaction with the community. He expressed his concern for the amount of overtime hours that would be generated from such a Traffic School. Further research will be done. The Planning and Building Director appeared to review and further explain the following items: 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Discussion: The Planning and Building Director introduced Lisa Farris, Grants Administrator, who provided the following information for Council consideration: Public Hearing for Submitted Applications for FY2015 CDBG Grant Thank you for submitting your 2015 CDBG Application. A public hearing is scheduled for February 26, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. during the City Council Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers of the City Annex Building located at 680 Park Avenue. The Draft FY2015 CDBG Annual Acton Plan will be discussed and applicants will be provided the opportunity to give a brief explanation of their project or activity. A thirty-day public comment period will start February 27, 2015 and end March 29, 2015. If no comments are received, the Draft FY2015 CDBG Annual Action Plan will be Council approved and adopted with a Resolution reached during the City Council Meeting scheduled for April 9, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Annex Building, 680 Park Avenue. The Draft FY2015 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD via email (E-con) on or before April 10, 2015 and a final approval is expected by HUD between May and June of 2015. For questions, please contact Lisa Farris b phone 208-612-8323, in person at City Hall Annex Building, 680 Park Avenue, or by email lfarris@idahofallsidaho.gov. Information is also available on the City website www.idahofallsidaho.gov by going to City Divisions, Planning and Building, and clicking on CDBG. FY2015 CDBG Annual Action Plan Schedule Announcements, Council Work Sessions, Public Hearings, and Council Meetings February 26, 2015 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing held in Council Chambers Grant Administrator provides summary of FY2015 CDBG process and projects. Applicants may provide brief explanation  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ February 27, 2015 30-Day Public Comment Period starts – Draft FY2015 Annual Action Plan posted on City website. March 29, 2015 30-Day Public Comment Period ends April 6, 2015 3:00 p.m. Council Work Session in Council Chambers to discuss final table and comments received during 30-day public comment period. April 9, 2015 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting to approve Resolution of funding distribution and adopt Draft CDBG FY2015 Annual Action Plan. April 10, 2015 Draft FY2015 CDBG Annual Action Plan submitted to HUD electronically for final approval. May/June, 2015 Approved projects commit funding once the following are completed by the City:  Environmental Review  Signed Agreement includes Scope of Work and regulatory requirements between City and responsible entity. Note – Projects are not retroactive – Start date begins upon signed Agreement between City and responsible entity. If communication aids or services or other physical accommodations are needed to participate or access this meeting, please contact Debra Petty at 612-8276 or Lisa Farris at 612-8323 within 24 hours of the scheduled meeting so we may accommodate your needs. The following memo from the Planning and Building Director was also submitted for information: City of Idaho Falls February 19, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Casper FROM:Brad Cramer, Planning and Building Director SUBJECT: FY2015 CDBG – COUNCIL WORK SESSION BRIEF The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation funded through Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that the FY2015 allocation for the City of Idaho Falls is $342,928.00. Attached is the list of projects and activities totaling $524,929.60 submitted by application for FY2015 CDBG funding. A public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 2015 during the City Council Meeting. The public hearing will provide applicants the opportunity to provide a brief explanation of their projects. A 30-day public comment period will start on February 27, 2015 and end of March 29, 2015. The City Council is scheduled to meet on Monday, April 6, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss public comments received and consider the table of project recommended for FY2015 funding. A Resolution to announce Council approved projects with FY2015 CDBG funds is scheduled during the April 9, 2015 Council Meeting.  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Attached is the table of projects submitted by application for FY2015 CDBG funding consideration. Please contact Lisa Farris if you have any questions, 612-8323. s/ Brad Cramer Activity/Amount and Eligible Activity Matrix Code/CFR/National Objective and Description $91,170 PUBLIC SERVICE 15% Maximum Allowed Idaho Falls Rescue Mission/$12,000 Public Service (O5E) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC Van/Cab with Hydraulic lift to deliver donated items, food boxes, and move individuals from transitional housing to permanent housing. Senior Center Community Center/$26,000 Public Service (O5E) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC Match funds to purchase of three (3) delivery vans $26,000 to support meals on wheels program. Partners for Prosperity/$9,500 Public Service (O5H) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC Services for Idaho Falls LMI clients to provide financial counseling, group financial classes, and soft skills/personal development training. Idaho Falls Legal Aid/$10,000 Public Service (O5C) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC Legal Aid Assistance to victims of domestic violence. Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMPO)/$3,670 Public Service (O5D) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Income Area Benefit LMA 7.34% Transportation Grant match requirement to access Safe Routes to School grant of $50,000. SRTS grant provides evaluation, encouragement, and incentives for LMA schools. CLUB, Inc. Crisis Intervention House/$20,000 Public Service (O3T) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Income Clientele LMC Presumed homeless at scattered site locations that cannot be served by the CIT House. Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership (EICAP)/$10,000 Public Service (O5C) 570.201(e) Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC Legal Aid Assistance for grandparents raising their grandchildren. $60,000 SLUM/BLIGHT 30% Maximum Allowed Idaho Falls Downtown Development Corporation (IFDDC)/$60,000 Public Facility (14E) 570.202(a)(3) Slum and Blight Area SBA Downtown improvements of facades, roofs, awnings, windows, code corrections, and signs. $305,174 LMI DIRECT ACTIVITY 70% Minimum Allowed Planning Department/$70,786 Code Enforcement (15) 570.202(c) Low/Mod Income Area Benefit LMA Full Time Code Enforcement Officer for LMI neighborhoods in US Census Tract neighborhoods. $69,786 full time staff of salary and benefits. $1,000 for office supplies and printing costs for Program. City Public Works Department/$50,000 Public Facility and Improvement (O3L) 570.201(c) Low/Mod Clientele Limited LMC Curb/Gutter and Sidewalk Replacement in LMI neighborhood. City Public Works Department/$10,000 Public Facility and Improvement (O3J) 570.201(c) Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC Water Line Replacement LMI clientele. LIFE, Inc./$50,000 Housing Rehab Single Unit (14A) 570.202 Living Independent For Everyone (LIFE, Inc.) ADA Housing Rehab of ramps and bathroom Housing Rehab Single Unit. Bonneville County/$52,004 Health Facilities (O3P) 570.201(c) Low/Mod Limited Clientele Repairs to exterior of the Behavioral Health Crisis Center of East Idaho (1650 North Holmes Avenue) Hospice of Eastern Idaho/$16,850 Public Facility and Improvements (O3) 570.201(c) Low/Mod Limited Clientele Replace two (2) furnaces and air conditioning units and paint for the exterior portion of the office building. Senior Center Community Center/$15,534 Public Facility and Improvements Senior Centers Low/Mod Limited Clientele LMC (03A) 570.201(c) Swamp cooler repairs and window replacement in the kitchen $15,534. Habitat 4 Humanity Idaho Falls/$40,000 Acquisition (1) 570.201(a) and Disposition (04) Low/Moderate Clientele LMC 570.201(b) Low/Mod Housing LMH Purchase of one property for one (1) single family home for an LMC family.  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ $68,585.60 ADMINISTRATION 20% Maximum Allowed Administration of CDBG Program/$68,585.60 Administration 570.206 Admin (21A) Admin allows 20% of FY2015 allocation of $342,928 Total Amount of Applications *$524,929.60 *Note: Total includes the Admin of $68,585.60 based on the FY2015 Allocation The Planning and Building Director and the Grants Administrator stated that the public comment period begins with the Public Hearing scheduled for February 26, 2015. 2. Area of Impact Discussion (Preliminary and Final Plats, Topics for Discussion at Future Council Work Sessions): The Planning and Building Director provided the following information for the Area of Impact Discussion: City of Idaho Falls February 19, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Brad Cramer, Planning and Building Director SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS Following recent public meetings regarding final plats and their relationship to previously approved preliminary plats, staff has identified the following needs: 1. Training and discussion with the Mayor and City Council regarding the differences between preliminary plats and final plats and the relationship between the zoning and subdivision ordinances. Specifically, these include differences in purpose, procedure, and legal requirements. 2. Possible adjustment of the Subdivision Ordinance. While preparing for and participating in the public meetings mentioned, it became increasingly clear to staff that the City’s past and present policies regarding preliminary and final plats is not consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. The ordinance or application procedures should be modified to reflect the policy. Attached with this memo are summaries of the items listed in Item 1. Staff will work toward the goals in Item 2 based on observations of the public meetings and discussion which will take place during the work session. s/ Brad Cramer Preliminary Plats  Purpose: The purpose of the preliminary plat is to provide a plan for development. It includes the preliminary drawings indicating the proposed manner or layout of the subdivision, including street and utility layout and design, lots, blocks, and proposed zoning and density. It does not create lots. Generally, the land reviewed is not yet annexed into the City. The preliminary plat is a more comprehensive and detailed planning process than a final plat. According to AIC’s “Smart Towns: A Guide to Growth Management for Idaho City and County Officials”, the word ‘preliminary’ is a misnomer because this stage is the most critical part of the approval process, where local officials determine whether the project will be approved, and if so, the conditions that must be met by the developer.”  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Approval Procedure:  Staff from various divisions review the plat for compliance with the zoning and subdivision ordinances, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and connectivity and functionality of proposed public infrastructure. Staff prepares a report for Planning Commission.  Planning Commission conducts a public hearing on the preliminary plat. The purpose of inviting public comment at this stage is to listen to concerns and discuss possible mitigation measures to impacts on adjacent development, roadways, or utility systems. Impacts should be relevant to the standards and criteria of the plat. For example, if the number of lots proposed will produce a certain level of traffic, a traffic study should be required and the cost of necessary road improvements to accommodate the traffic should be borne by the developer, not the existing development. Periphery issues such as property values, quality of construction, and restrictive covenants are not relevant criteria and should not factor into the decision.  A preliminary plat will expire after one year unless a final plat is filed or an extension is granted. Final Plats Purpose: The purpose of the final plat is to legally establish and create developable lots, dedicate necessary right-of-way, and approve the construction drawings for utilities and roadways. Generally, final plats are only filed for the portion of a development that is ready for construction, as opposed to the preliminary plat which is a plan for all phase of the development. By the time a final plat is submitted, the applicant should have complete confidence that if the plat complies with the ordinance, it will be approved. Approval Procedure:  Staff from various divisions review the plat for compliance with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. Staff also checks for consistency with the preliminary plat, however this is not required by ordinance. The preliminary plat was where the “heavy lifting” was done to make sure the overall development will work.  Planning Commission and City Council review the plat at a public meeting. No public hearing is held unless associated with an annexation and initial zoning. The hearing, however, has historically been to talk about the zone, not the plat.  According to AIC’s “Smart Towns: A Guide to Growth Management for Idaho City and County Officials”, it is important to note that approval of the final plat is considered a “ministerial” act – that is, approval is required if the developer has complied with the provisions of the preliminary plat, applicable state statutes and local ordinances.”  According to the subdivision ordinance, “If the final plat conforms to the provisions of this chapter and all other state or federal laws, or local ordinances, the City Council shall approve the final plat .”  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Idaho Statutes on Platting  67-6513: Subdivision Ordinance o Governing board shall create an ordinance outlining standards for processing of applications for subdivision permits. o May provide mitigation of effects of subdivision development on ability of political subdivisions to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision. o Denial or approval with conditions unacceptable to landowner may be subject to regulatory takings analysis.  Public hearing not required for final plat. However per Idaho Code 67-6521(1)(b) “any affected person may at any time prior to final action on an application required or authorized under this chapter, if no hearing has been held on the application, petition the commission or governing board in writing to hold a hearing. If 20 affected persons petition for a hearing, the hearing shall be held.  Title 50 deals with required elements of a plat including surveying standards, etc.  50-1308: If a jurisdiction has a Planning and Zoning Commission, plats must be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to Council approval.  Idaho Code does not include a requirement for a preliminary plat process. Relationship between the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances There are nine specified purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Each of these reasons revolve around creating consistent expectations and facilitating orderly growth. Each zone establishes allowed uses and minimum standards for lot size, width, landscaping, etc. The uses and minimum standards are rights that a homeowner or developer may build to within that zone. If an application meets the minimum standards, the City cannot deny the application. For example, the R-1 Zone requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and allows single- family homes. If a builder purchases a 6,000 square foot lot he may submit an application for a permit to construct a single-family home. If the application shows the building will meet all setbacks, height restrictions, and green space requirements, the City must issue the permit.  The Subdivision Ordinance is also intended to ensure orderly growth, but in a different way than a Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance is about creating lots for construction. It establishes legal descriptions of property boundaries. It also provides standards for how plat maps are to be created. One of the standards is that all lots within the subdivision meet the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance does not provide any standards for minimum lot sizes, densities, etc. That is the role of the Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance ensures that those minimum standards are enforced. If a property is zoned R-1, an applicant has a right to submit a plat that shows 6,000 square foot lots, minimum right-of-way dedications, connectivity to existing or planned public infrastructure and expect that such plat will be approved. In fact, as noted elsewhere, the Subdivision Ordinance states, “If the final plat conforms to the provisions of this chapter and all other applicable state or federal laws, or local ordinances, the City Council shall approve the final plat. ”  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Comprehensive Plan Implementation  Planned projects  Current projects  Outlook, current staff capacity, and potential needs General Planning Issues  Defining urban development  Growth patterns o Historical trends o Projected growth o Desired growth o Priority growth areas and policies Utilities and Infrastructure (this will need to be covered in multiple work sessions)  Review of current utility extension policy o Results of past extra-territorial extensions  Number of parcels receiving services  How utility extensions relate to State annexation and LID statutes o Discussion of any scenarios under which the City might consider extra-territorial extensions.  City review for County projects within the Area of City Impact o Limitations of extra-territorial utility extensions  Idaho Falls Power  Rocky Mountain power buyouts  Current systems o Capacity o Potential service areas o The effect of EIRWAA Area of City Impact Issues  Review of existing AOCI agreement and ordinance o Current policies and procedures established by the agreement o Estimated population and available developable land within AOCI boundaries  City and County Comparisons o Comprehensive Plans  Maps – Differences in land use designations  Policies  Differences and similarities in growth policies o Ordinances – Review of critical differences  Zoning  Subdivision  Goals for new process and agreement o What horizon to consider (10, 20, 30 years?) o Goals for required public process o Expected timeline o Data and information desired from staff o Cooperation between City and County o City participation  FEBRUARY 23, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Following a discussion regarding the above information, it was determined that the City of Idaho Falls needs to have a clarity in the process if the Final Plat differs from the Preliminary Plat. The Planning and Building Director stated that he would work with the City Attorney regarding an Ordinance Amendment to determine that clarity. The City Attorney appeared to review and further explain the following item: 1. General Discussion about Public Processes: The City Attorney explained that when a policy is established, it should be included in an Ordinance. Due process needs to be consistent, otherwise people feel slighted. During a public hearing, people have a right to speak. Within a public meeting, that is not always the case. The City Council needs to determine whether public input should be taken outside of the public hearing process. The Municipal Services Division has compiled a draft 2015 Budget Calendar. Following is the draft: TENTATIVE BUDGET CALENDAR – FY 2015-2016 DATE MEETING OR WORK TASK NOTES Early May Community Outreach Mayor/Council Discussion Tuesday, July 14, 2015 Council Budget Workshop – 6 to 7 hours Presentations from Divisions Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Council Budget Workshop – 6 to 7 hours Presentations from Divisions Friday, July 31, 2015 Council Budget Workshop – 3 hours Budget Discussion Friday, July 31, 2015 County Certifies Taxable Valuation Tuesday, August 4, 2015 Council Budget Workshop – 3 hours Budget Discussion Thursday, August 6, 2015 Council Budget Workshop – 3 hours Final Budget Discussion Thursday, August 13, 2015 Council Meeting – Adopt Proposed Budget Thursday, August 27, 2015 Option 1 Council Meeting – Public Hearing Option 1 or 2 to conduct public hearing Thursday, September 3, 2015 Option 2 Special Council Meeting – Public Hearing for proposed budget Tuesday, September 8, 2015 Council Work Session – Adopt Final Budget Thursday, September 10, 2015 Certify Tax Dollars to County 2014 – We held 9 Council Budget Workshops with approximately 20 hours of discussion. 2015 – We propose 5 Council Budget Workshops with approximately 20-23 hours of discussion. Following a brief discussion regarding dates that the City Council can be available, it was determined that Option 2 would be the best option. Councilmembers would review their calendars to be sure that the remainder of the calendar would be acceptable. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Marohn, seconded by Councilmember Hally, that the meeting adjourn at 5:45 p.m. _______________________________________ _____________________________________ CITY CLERK MAYOR ************************