PRESENT: Council members Newton and O'Hara were present. Councilman Snedden was absent.
STAFF PRESENT: Parks and Recreation Director Kim Woodruff, Police Chief Mark Lockwood, Planning Director Jeremy Grimm, Planning Assistant Melissa Bethel, Fire Chief Robert Tyler, City Attorney Will Herrington and City Clerk Maree Peck.
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilman Boge, Bill Geibel, Jr., Forrest Schuck, Justin Schuck, Marsha Ogilvie, James Henson, Bob and Liz Hawn.
BANNERS
Councilman Boge noted that he had not received any documentation from the Planning Director based on last month's recommendation that he conduct research on how to have a more proactive way for enforcement regarding the city’s restrictions on banners for advertising. Councilman O’Hara stated he received information from the Planning Director with a proposed amendment that would change the description of a banner. Councilwoman Newton felt banners should be repealed from city code as she didn't feel banners could or would be enforced. She said she had a proposed ordinance repealing the code. Councilman Boge agreed that it would be difficult to enforce. He commented it would be more business friendly if the code was repealed for banners. Mayor Hellar stated the Planning Director suggested allowing only one banner for each business. Councilman Boge suggested that the full council discuss the idea of either repealing banners or discuss the Planning Director’s proposal. Councilwoman Newton commented that if Mr. Grimm has a way to show that it can be enforced without an additional cost to the city, she would be interested in hearing his idea but raised concern that it would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Henson, business owner of Meandering Moose Motel, opposed the current code regarding banners and stressed that he needed to have his banner up for more than 30 days as it wouldn't be cost effective to only have it up less than 30 days.
RECOMMENDATION: That the proposed ordinance banning restrictions on banners be discussed with full city council for consideration at the December 16, 2009, council meeting.
1. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT
Melissa Bethel, staff liaison of the Historic Preservation Commission, explained last year the city applied for and received the Certified Local Government grant with the opportunity to recoup grant money from the National Parks Department and that the grant is based on population. She said it was recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office in Boise that the city start surveying historic structures and neighborhoods that could be on the National Register. She said the Historic Preservation Commission hopes to use CLG funds for surveys every year and wants to start with a 10 block area along Sixth Avenue. She said members of the Historic Preservation Commission have committed to donating their time to conduct the survey.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT CALENDAR: That city council approve the proposed Memorandum of Agreement, approve the in-kind match of $4,000 for the Historic Preservation Commission and authorize the mayor and city clerk to sign.
2. DOCK STREET AND MARINA IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AWARD
Councilwoman Newton pointed out that Councilman Snedden reviewed and approved the proposed contract. Parks and Recreation Director Kim Woodruff requested that the Dock Street Improvement Project – Phase 1, as advertised in the Bonner County Daily Bee, be placed on the city council agenda in December authorizing the mayor to execute a contract with the lowest, responsible bidder as recommended by staff. He also requested budget authority for the project from Line Items 05-5102 Breakwater – transient moorage; 05-8000 Park capital reserve – parks; 08-8303 Donated Projects; 08-8372 IDPR Grant; 08-8309 Moorage Project – breakwater – grant and 08-8321 Traver's Park Parking Lot. He noted that all revenues are available from the Parks Improvement Fund and Capital Improvement Fund and that property taxes will not be used for the project. He stated the project will have reimbursable grants of approximately $186,200. He stated he has communicated with adjacent neighbors, Seasons at Sandpoint and with environmental agencies to assure proper cautions and controls are addressed in the bid specifications. He explained the project involves the construction of breakwater, jetty expansion and dock installation at the City of Sandpoint Marina near City Beach. He said the proposed breakwater will be a rock fill embankment extending into the lake, and the existing Dock Street jetty will be widened to accommodate emergency vehicle turnaround. He said the project will include construction of a transient boat dock, fire suppression system for the proposed dock, and electrical utility conduit installation for lighting improvements. He said the total cost of the project would be approximately $600,000 to $650,000.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT CALENDAR: That city council approve the proposed Contract, authorize the mayor and city clerk to sign and authorize budget authority as described by the Parks and Recreation Director.
CITY BEACH USER FEE
Councilwoman Newton proposed implementing an entrance fee for the City Beach and provided scenarios based on a $1.00 or $2.00 fee per vehicle with no charge for city residents. She referred to the correspondence received from Marcia Phillips and Brad Golphenee, who oppose the proposal but who reside outside the city. She said there was also opposition from a concerned Sandpoint resident who did not reveal their name or address, and John Shaw who resides at Seasons at Sandpoint. She stated for the 28 years she has been associated with the city, mayors have annually pleaded with city councils to find or entertain proposals for new sources of revenue. The plea has generally been made because of rising costs of providing services and not to reduce property taxes. The resort city tax enacted several years ago is an example of the few new successful revenue ideas, but it has not been used primarily to reduce property taxes. The only way costs will be reduced is if a service is reduced or eliminated. The issue then becomes a matter of prioritizing the level of funding for city services and which are more important than others. To put it bluntly, do city taxpayers want more tax dollars spent to keep city parks at their present level of maintenance and operation, and, if so, are they willing to sacrifice the level of service in other departments? She referred to the survey Councilman Boge and she conducted where fire is the first priority, followed by police, streets and planning, with parks down the list and recreation at the bottom of the list. At our semi-annual meetings with employees, nearly every year employees suggest a charge for the beach. It is a possibility that has been whispered about in city hall for many, many years but no one has ever had the political fortitude to actually put it on the table and shed some light on the possibilities. She promised the employees at the last council-employee meeting that she would work on a proposal. She said her spreadsheets show a myriad of possible scenarios after and including the first year’s start up costs. She noted the only people who have made negative comments to her are people who live outside the city. She said she would be open to considering charging a small fee for a “season” pass and make it available to anyone – county resident, out of county, state or country. The state’s fee is $35, which seems very reasonable, but suggested a fee for the beach might be set at $25, giving the holder unlimited access to the beach every day throughout a seasonal basis. Access by city residents would continue to be free, provided they have the sticker attached to their windshield. Multiple stickers could be at the seasonal pass rate. The city taxpayers cannot continue to be the only ones supporting such facilities. Anyone who travels anywhere outside Sandpoint knows they pay to use public parks – even if it to just drive through. The parks director told her he is not willing to take a position on this proposal.
Councilman O'Hara pointed out the city already has a mechanism in place for revenue, such as the resort city tax. He noted the city generated approximately $200,000 last year with $13,000 allocated for the Parks and Recreation Department. He felt city council should earmark funds more appropriately, and if council wants to make a political case elsewhere in the budget, they should consider maintaining or cutting services. He felt the proposed user fee was a negative aspect but felt a parking fee would be a politically better choice. He stated the proposed city beach user fee would have ramifications against the Dock Street project. He stressed that people could utilize valuable parking spots on First Avenue in order to avoid paying the user fee and could shift their parking at the Edgewater Resort. He suggested staying away from a per day charge with the need to utilize the resort city tax. Mr. Henson, owner of the Meandering Moose Motel, felt the City Beach user fee would be a deterrent for his business and that he is adjusting his prices because of the resort city tax. Bill Geibel, Jr., commented that, as a business owner, he was concerned that the proposed fee would deter people from going to the city beach. Justin Schuck asked why a kiosk couldn’t be used instead. Councilwoman Newton stated she did consider this approach but felt this would entail more enforcement from the police department.
RECOMMENDATION: That this matter be discussed with full city council at the December 16, 2009, council meeting.
FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE
Councilwoman Newton noted a proposed ordinance passed its first reading at the November 18th council meeting but did not pass its second and third reading. It was brought back to this evening’s meeting to include provisions for the police department in order to implement the ordinance by January 1st. She said the new proposed ordinance completely ignored all of the work she and Fire Chief Tyler had done on the ordinance that has passed its first reading.
RECOMMENDATION: That the proposed ordinance as originally presented to city council at the November 18th meeting that passed its first reading be on next week's agenda for full city council for the second and third reading.
SONNELAND BALD MOUNTAIN TRANSMITTER SITE LEASE
City Attorney Will Herrington stated that city council approved the renewal of the Sonneland lease last summer but that the business has deteriorated, and Dr. Sonneland returned the lease and has not paid the lease fee; therefore the lease is in default. He stated that Dr. Sonneland has located an individual who is interested in purchasing the equipment from him with assignment to the new user. He stated the police chief had concerns that the new user may interfere with law enforcement use at the site. He advised the city could give Dr. Sonneland until June 1st to remove his equipment, tell Dr. Sonneland that the city would consider assignment of the lease if he signed and paid the fees up to date, or research as to what the new user would use the lease for and whether such use would interfere with law enforcement uses. He raised concern that it would be difficult to remedy the problem if there were interference problems.
Police Chief Mark Lockwood said he has communicated with Mr. Geibel but that the issues needed to be reviewed by the city attorney. He suggested removing the lease, but Mr. Geibel will need to know what the fees would be as they would be different from Dr. Sonneland’s, as their types of communication are different. He said, currently, Dr. Sonneland doesn’t have any subleasees. Mr. Herrington suspected Dr. Sonneland hasn't moved his equipment from the site but that the city could acquire the equipment if it was not moved within a certain date. He noted that Dr. Sonneland wants to sell his equipment and tower to W.O.W. Councilwoman Newton stressed that the city needs to resolve their relationship with Dr. Sonneland before the city considers assigning the lease to W.O.W. She felt it was premature and inappropriate to consider or discuss assigning the lease to someone else until the issue with Dr. Sonneland was resolved.
Mr. Herrington advised that the city notify Dr. Sonneland that he's in default and to move his equipment within so many days, or that Dr. Sonneland would have up to 10 days to pay the current lease fees, to bring him into compliance with the lease, and then the city could consider assignment of the lease. Councilman O'Hara said he knows Mr. Geibel personally and uses his services for the business he works for. He felt the city should give Dr. Sonneland the ultimatum in order to bring his lease current and to sell the lease. Mr. Herrington explained if the lease is cancelled, the city would need to look for a new user at the site. He said it's public knowledge when a site is available, with potential users coming to the city requesting space at the site. Councilwoman Newton suggested terminating the lease and that there be public advertisement that the space is available for lease. Police Chief Mark Lockwood pointed out the lease has a default section. Mr. Herrington said the turnaround time to terminate the lease with Dr. Sonneland, to allow him time to remove his equipment and to publicize the space could take from 30 to 60 days. He explained the lease expired and Dr. Sonneland hasn’t signed and paid the fee with the new lease offered but that there may be a provision in the prior lease that gives him the right to renew the lease. Mr. Geibel commented that it would be difficult to remove the tower and equipment until next July due to the weather. He raised concern that there would be a long delay due to the current lessee's absence. He said he would be interested in leasing the property with the existing tower.
RECOMMENDATION: That the city terminate the lease with Dr. Sonneland, to provide an appropriate time for him to remove his equipment, then to publicize the space and that this matter be discussed with the full city council at the December 16th council meeting.
AMENDMENT OF SANDPOINT CODE 2-1-4-C
Councilwoman Newton noted the proposed language changing the quorum requirement for the Planning Commission is taken directly from Idaho Code 50-705. She noted in September of this year, the Commission was down to four active members. Three members (constituting a legal quorum under the present code) held a public hearing on a variance. Had the Commission been down to three active members, only two members would have constituted a legal quorum and could have conducted a public hearing. The current Planning Commission is at full membership of seven. However, only one commission member has any longevity on the Commission – Commissioner Saied has been on for 8 years and 1 month. The next longest serving member has been on for 1 year and 3 months. Two members have been on for 1 year, and 3 members – nearly one-half of the commission – have not yet been on for 3 months. At the meeting mentioned, the 3 members who were present had a total of 2 years and 8 months experience combined. The Commission has the authority to hold public hearings and approve variances and Conditional Use Permits without them ever going before city council. Planning Commission members are appointed, not elected, and therefore not directly accountable to the voters. No Commission member has ever been removed by a City Council. The potential for controversial conditional use permits or variances is significant, and it should be a reasonable expectation that at least four members be present to deliberate and vote. The conditional use permit process is lengthy and creates significant additional expense, and the final decision is made by only the Planning Commission unless the applicant wishes to pay the $200 fee to appeal to the city council, adding time and expense.
City Attorney Will Herrington stated when the Planning Commission is short of members, the law requires that the Planning Commission act on issues before they go before city council. He said if the Planning Commission can't make recommendations, property owners have to wait. He suggested the intermediate action between the present and proposed ordinance would be to apply the provision only when the Planning Commission is making a final decision. He said a majority of Planning Commission actions are simply recommendations that the council take action, and it wouldn’t be as important to have a full Planning Commission to make those decisions. He advised if city council decides to consider the proposed ordinance, it has to go to public hearing before the Planning Commission, then to city council. He said the Local Planning Act requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and council because it impacts the Planning Commission, which is established under the Local Planning Act. Councilman O’Hara felt it made sense to have a more active role in getting people on the commission that there be a simple rule that establishes what a quorum is and is based on full membership. Planning Director Jeremy Grimm suggested another step could be that a decision automatically moves to city council, such as a conditional use permit or variance, when there's no quorum. He pointed out when a land use application is received, there are notice requirements with the expense of notifying adjacent property owners and a risk that commission members can’t attend when the hearing is scheduled up to three weeks away. He reported there was one meeting where only three members attended the meeting. Mr. Herrington explained the establishment of a Planning Commission is governed by Idaho Code 67-6504 which provides how members are to be in the Planning Commission and that the city establishes rules and regulations. He said it was established pursuant to the Local Planning Act, and when ordinances are amended pursuant to the Local Planning Act, this matter is to go with a public hearing before the Planning Commission and city council.
RECOMMENDATION: That this matter be discussed with full city council at the December 16, 2009 council meeting.
HANDS FREE ORDINANCE
Councilwoman Newton noted, of all the major countries in the world, only three do not have some type of regulation in place banning cell phone usage while driving – New Zealand, where it is under debate, Sweden and the United States. Japan imposed their ban in 1999. In the United States, six states and the District of Columbia have regulations in place banning cell phone use: New York, 2001; District of Columbia, 2004; New Jersey, 2004; Connecticut, 2005; Washington, 2008; California, 2009. She stated Sandpoint City Code 6-1-7 was written prior to 1983 and was written because there were so many things not covered by Inattentive Driving in the State Code that the courts were throwing out our Inattentive Driving cases one after another when the driving behavior was not “specifically” prohibited by the State Code. She believed the general lack of attention and distraction stemming from the use of cell phones is not ever going to be directly addressed unless there is a city code that prohibits it. She stressed if state code covered everything, the city wouldn’t need a city code. The fact that the legislature did not pass a cell phone bill last session means absolutely nothing to citizens of Sandpoint. There are lots of things that pose hazards in urban and suburban settings that are totally different if done out on a county road. Any city ordinance adopted would not be in conflict with state law because there is no state law. She stated dozens of people approached her in support of this proposal. She said phone calls for emergencies are exempted and that this is a public safety issue. She stressed those who oppose this proposal need to be ready to defend their position when a pedestrian is injured, maimed or killed by a driver who was distracted because they were using a cell phone or text messaging.
Councilwoman Newton provided a proposed ordinance that prohibits cell phone use while driving unless it's a hand free device. She said it would completely prohibit use by drivers of motor vehicles under the age of 18, those who have a driver's learner permit and completely bans text messaging. She said the ban excludes any emergency vehicles engaged in emergency communication including those who call 911 and school bus drivers who use cell phones only related to emergencies. She said the ban would also apply to bicyclists and skateboarders. She stated the ordinance would be a primary offense which means a police officer can pull someone over for using their cell phone.
Councilman O'Hara stated it was a public safety issue but that additional considerations were necessary in the decision, such as whether the proposed ordinance was needed, is more enforcement necessary if it’s already covered in Idaho Code regarding inattentive driving, whether it was enforceable and whether it would be an infringement on people's rights. He stated there would be a question as to if any other conversation in the vehicle was any safer. He believed it was more intricate than simply a public safety issue. He reported there are seven States that preclude municipalities of enacting any legislation of this type of activity. He felt the proposal looked good but, ultimately, it does nothing to solve the problem for those who are driving inattentively. He expressed reservations to the proposal. Mayor Hellar stated she could provide research that demonstrates that there is no benefit of having hands free versus not having hands free cell phone.
Councilwoman Newton provided a different proposed ordinance that included an inattentive driving provision that would be presented to city council. Police Chief Mark Lockwood stated he provided a broad spectrum of information to the council that he received from the attorney general's office as to why the State's attempt of a statutory provision for cell phones, as well as texting, failed and a breakdown of information he received from other cities. He referred to Idaho Code 49-1401 subsection 3, which provides that inattentive driving is not a secondary code. He said he also provided the statistics from his department from 1990 through November 30, 2009, reflecting a total of 1,297 inattentive crashes with the determination of 132 inattentive citations, with 11 cases involving cell phones as the primary distraction. He said he provided a comparison between the proposed ordinances with the City of Taos, New Mexico’s, cell phone ordinance. He said the city’s prosecuting attorney expressed concerns with the enforcement aspects. Mr. Herrington pointed out that he proposed a provision in the taxicab ordinance that the drivers licensed through the city not utilize cell phones while driving. He felt regulations on cell phones should be statewide regulated rather than locally. He stated that people driving through Sandpoint who are residents from out of town won't know the rules and that it would be difficult to enforce. He felt it was dangerous to drive while taking on the cell phone, with the only proof that cell phones used is when there is a fatality or a serious accident. He didn’t feel the ordinance should be adopted but supported the principle that people shouldn’t be driving when talking on their cell phone.
City Clerk Maree Peck read a letter from Larry Blakey, who applauded Councilwoman Newton's proposal but felt hands free use is just as dangerous as hand held use. Some studies also show that cell phone use while walking along roadways and using crosswalks increase traffic and pedestrian deaths. He didn't understand the prohibition against cell phone use for drivers under 18 years old because there's no assumption the average adult is any better. He suggested a strong resolution to the state legislature and governor, because if the ordinance is adopted locally, there may be challenges through the court system.
Councilwoman Newton stated her proposal is for a $100 infraction for each citation. Chief Lockwood noted there are a multitude of distractions involved when driving. He stated the largest issue with law enforcement within the last five years is cell phone texting. He said a ban on hands free cell phone use will not eliminate all inattentive driving issues. He said law enforcement follows the State code, which has defined case law when investigating accidents as opposed to dealing with a city ordinance. Councilman O'Hara suggested an education aspect was necessary in order to help the community better understand that the city is proactive in protecting pedestrian and bicyclists.
RECOMMENDATION: That the amended proposed ordinance be provided to city council for discussion at the December 16, 2009, council meeting.
AMENDMENT OF SANDPOINT CODE 2-2-3-B – IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Councilwoman Newton proposed amending Sandpoint Code 2-2-3-B that two members representing development, building or real estate shall be automatically removed as members of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee if they miss two consecutive meetings. She stated the current two members have only attended 50% of the meetings. She provided an overview of the recommendations of the committee and dates when they met. She felt it necessary to replace the committee member who has missed three meetings and it was apparent the other member has already missed two meetings, and if he misses the next meeting, he needs to be replaced. Councilman O'Hara commented it’s critical that legitimacy comes from a diversity of opinions, and it’s important that the committee have members who have experience in the building industry in terms of how impact fees affect development and the economic development. Forrest Schuck stated he would be interested in serving as a member of the committee if a position was available. Councilwoman Newton pointed out that her proposal only applies to those who represent development, building or real estate, not to the Planning Commission members. Planning Director Jeremy Grimm suggested the appointment schedule be more frequently revisited. Councilman O’Hara suggested the ordinance read that a meeting is held every year on the first Tuesday in January and if subsequent meetings are held, the members would have sufficient notice in order to attend the meeting. Mr. Grimm said he expected the Impact Fee Advisory Committee to review the Urban Area Transportation Plan and how equitable it would be, which would make them a more active group in the future.
RECOMMENDATION: That the amended proposed ordinance be provided to city council for discussion at the December 16, 2009, council meeting.
3. POSSIBLE SALE OF OUTSTANDING TREE BOOKLETS
City Clerk Maree Peck stated that City Treasurer Shannon Syth suggested that the sale of the
booklet for re-sale purposes is handled appropriately by the City, which would require each vendor to file a Sales Tax Exemption Form with the city in order to protect the city from the “sales tax issue” when audited. The committee saw the treasurer’s comments as her responsibility and felt confident she would appropriately administer the sales for the city.
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT CALENDAR: That city council approve the following recommendation of the Tree Committee:
1. Sell booklet for $2.00 a copy on a wholesale basis to businesses or groups for resale at a price they would set (e.g. Keokee Publishing, Greater Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce, realtors, local bookstores). The retailer would collect and pay the state sales tax.
2. Advertise through the city's utility bill that a free copy is available to city residents who pick them up at the City Clerk's office at no cost.
3. Money from wholesale revenues would go to the city's urban forestry budget.
The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Maree Peck, City Clerk
