OPENING: Mayor Hellar called the regular meeting of the city council to order at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 16, 2009, in the council chambers at City Hall, 1123 Lake.
ROLL CALL: Council members Boge, Newton, Snedden, Logan, Reuter and O’Hara were present.
Councilwoman Newton moved that city council approve the amended agenda with the addition of two appointments for the Parks and Recreation Commission and to move the two items under Old Business to the end of the agenda. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Graves, Elder Services, gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Hellar led the council and the public in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilwoman Newton recognized the recent passing of Teresa Deshon who served as City of Sandpoint council member from 1979 to 1988 and read a portion of the remarks she read at Ms. Deshon’s memorial service. She recognized the changes made and the issues Ms. Deshon supported during her service on city council.
PUBLIC FORUM
Kathleen Hyde, 301 North First Ave., Office Manager of the Downtown Sandpoint Business (DSBA), stated their entire executive board will not have the opportunity to discuss the proposed beach parking fees until next week and requested more time in order to have the opportunity to canvas all their members for their input. She requested that this matter be tabled for further consideration by the DSBA board and for city council to gather more facts in order to make a more informative decision.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Reuter requested to remove Item E-1 – Possible Sale of Outstanding Tree Booklets.
Councilwoman Logan moved that items A-1 through D-2 and E-2 through F-3 be approved. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote of council present.
A. MINUTES
A-1 City Council regular minutes of November 18, 2009, and special minutes of November 5, 2009;
A-2 Planning Commission minutes of November 3, 2009, and November 17, 2009;
A-3 Arts Commission minutes of October 13, 2009;
A-4 Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of September 28, 2009;
A-5 Tree Committee minutes of October 20, 2009;
A-6 Urban Renewal Board minutes of November 3, 2009.
B Bills for the month of November 2009 in the amount of $734,372.73, $338,198.16 of which is for accounts payable and $396,174.57 for payroll and benefits
C COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
C-1 Parks and Recreation Commission – Sue Austin to a three-year term expiring December 31, 2012.
C-2 Pedestrian Advisory Committee – Erica Nizzoli to a one-year term expiring November 30, 2010.
C-3 Parks and Recreation Commission – Mariah Breakey, student, to a one-year term expiring December 31, 2010.
C-4 Parks and Recreation Commission – Jim DuBuisson to a three-year term expiring December 31, 2012.
D PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2, 2009, MINUTES
D-1 Grant one-time sewer credit in the amount of $1,345.82 to Masonic Temple.
D-2 Approve fee waivers to Bonner County Sheriff in the amount of $117.81 for plan review; $181.25 for the permit fee and $430 for planning and zoning site plan review with a total waiver in the amount of $729.06
E ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE DECEMBER 9, 2009 MINUTES
E-1 Possible Sale of Outstanding Tree Booklets – removed from consent
F RESOLUTIONS
F-1 Resolution No. 09-74 Declaration of Surplus Public Works Department Equipment
F-2 Resolution No. 09-75 Certified Local Government Grant Contract
F-3 Resolution No. 09-76 Dock Street and Marina Improvement Contract
NEW BUSINESS
I-1 PUBLIC HEARING – WATER AND SEWER RATES
Mayor Hellar announced that the purpose of this public hearing was to hear public testimony regarding proposed in-town and out-of-town, residential, multi-family, irrigation, commercial, industrial and large users water rates and proposed residential, multi-family, Commercial I (grease producers) and Commercial II (non-grease producers) sewer rates. In accordance with Idaho Code, notice of this public hearing has been published in the Bonner County Daily Bee on December 2 and 9, 2009.
Public Works Director Kody Van Dyk noted the proposed fees were discussed at two council workshops by Tom Gould of HDR Engineering that reflects only next year’s increase that’s part of a five year plan with a 15% rate adjustment for water the first year in order to pay the debt service for the new water treatment plant. He explained the sewer rates are increased by 20% the first year. He said a decision needed to be made by council for multi-family whether to implement a uniform rate or seasonal rate. He explained to Councilman Reuter Mr. Gould recommended that the water districts be charged a large water user rate with a one set fee. City Attorney Will Herrington confirmed the water districts would be held to this rate if the fees were adopted. Kody Van Dyk added that each water district is on one master meter with an average use of 15,000 gallons per user with a calculation each month based on the number of users within the water district and would have to rely on the district to provide the number of users. Councilwoman Logan suggested charging the water districts with a base amount on the residential rate multiplied by the number of users within the water district and to be treated similar as family residences. She proposed restructuring the average user based on 5,000 gallons from November and May and 10,000 gallons from June through October. Kody Van Dyk stated Mr. Gould recommended that the water districts be charged with a large user rate at a flat rate primarily because they do their own billing, the transmission mains are all that the water districts use and the city does not have to provide all the services through the water system which the city controls. He explained the debt service is 100% pledged from rates as required by the bond holder.
The mayor advised that the hearing would be conducted in compliance with the
following rules of procedure: Before persons testify at public hearings, they are to fill
out the signup sheet available at the front of council chambers and hand deliver to staff. If you desire, you may note your objection or approval on the form provided; if you wish
to comment during the public hearing, please come to the microphone and state your name and residence address for the record; if you do not wish to comment but have
written comment that reflects your opposition or support, please provide to the city clerk
and she can read your letter into the record; please limit your comments to no more
than three minutes; testimony shall directly address the subject at hand and shall not be personally derogatory nor shall it be personally directed at any individual, organization
or business; members of the council may ask questions of persons who testify. If they do so, it will be only for the purpose of clarifying information; once the public hearing portion of this meeting is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public input on the proposal; the council will then discuss among themselves the testimony they have heard and what, if anything, they may propose as a result of this hearing; those testifying should clearly indicate their name and address for the clerk.
The mayor opened the public hearing to accept testimony. No one testified.
Mayor Hellar closed the public hearing.
Kody Van Dyk explained the seasonal rate is more conservation oriented than the uniform rate. He said there are few incentives for multi-family units to conserve other than installing conservation measures for plumbing, and new multi-family units tend to install a separate irrigation meter. He stated there would be an opportunity to determine the impact as to whether this would work on a conservation measure based on one year usage. Councilwoman Newton commented that she could support if only it demonstrated one year from now that it would have an impact on conservation. Councilman Reuter commented the rates for multi-family units could increase.
Councilman Snedden moved that city council approve Multi-Family Seasonal (Option 2). Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. Councilman O’Hara questioned whether the city wasn’t already implementing a conservation measure because the city would be charging more for water usage. He felt any rate increase would have consequences on usage, whether it’s seasonally based or not. Councilman Reuter raised concern the current rate system is problematic for multi-family, and the seasonal rate exacerbates the problems that exist under the system. He said he wants to review the rates for multi-family next year and preferred the uniform rate. The motion passed by a majority of council with Council members Reuter and O’Hara dissenting.
Councilwoman Newton moved that the single family rates be based on the first 6,000 gallons, then from 6,000 to 15,000 gallons. She commented this would be for one year only. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. She commented that 3,000 gallons was too low. Councilman O’Hara pointed out this would only save the consumer with an average of four people in a household $.90 per month. Councilman Reuter raised concern whether this would meet the bond obligations and didn’t feel there would be any conservation benefit for the average user. Council members Boge, Logan and Newton voted yes. Council members O’Hara, Reuter and Snedden voted no. Mayor Hellar voted no. Motion failed.
Councilwoman Logan moved to amend to add additional language to address the city’s contracted providers Northside, Syringa and Granite Ridge Water Districts to be charged at the large water user rate, and once the usage went over 15,000 gallons per account, they would be charged at the single family rate of $5.38 for 15,000 to 40,000 gallons and over 40,000 at $6.38. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
I-2. RESOLUTION NO. 09-77 – WATER AND SEWER RATES INCREASES
Councilwoman Logan moved that the proposed resolution “Water and Sewer Rates Increases” be approved, as amended. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilman Boge dissenting.
J-1. PUBLIC HEARING – CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE REVENUE ALLOCATION AREA AND URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE NORTHERN SANDPOINT URBAN RENWAL PLAN
Mayor Hellar announced the purpose of this public hearing was to hear public testimony regarding changes to the boundary of the Revenue Allocation Area and Urban Renewal Area in the northern Sandpoint Urban Renewal Plan. No changes are proposed for the objective of this plan, which remains as the funding of public infrastructure improvements for the reconstruction of Great Northern Road/Woodland Drive and other ancillary public improvements. In accordance with Idaho Code, notice of this public hearing has been published in the Bonner County Daily Bee on November 14, 2009.
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm explained the proposed amendment was brought forward by the Urban Renewal Agency in an effort to correct a scrivener’s error from when the original plan was adopted. In addition, the modification of the downtown Sandpoint Urban Renewal Plan captures the development on two additional lots in the northern footprint at the Seasons at Sandpoint. He said Planning and Zoning Commission felt the proposals were consistent with the comprehensive plan. He explained the only modifications should be the legal description and that the proposed maps accurately reflect the modified legal descriptions. Councilwoman Newton referred to Section 3 of the proposed ordinance that amendments are based on the findings as well. She suggested that the ordinance be rewritten particularly amending Section 3.
Jeremy Grimm pointed out the intent was to capture as much revenue allocation area without exceeding the 10% as allowed by law. Kody Van Dyk explained all properties within the urban renewal boundaries are within the urban renewal area.
The mayor advised that the hearing would be conducted in compliance with the
rules previously read.
The mayor opened the public hearing to accept testimony. No one testified.
Mayor Hellar closed the public hearing.
K-1. ORDINANCE NO. 1222 – NORTHERN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AMENDMENT
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only. Councilman Snedden moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, Bonner County, Idaho, adopting an amended revenue allocation area for the city’s Northern Urban Renewal Plan Area; making certain findings and conclusions in support thereof; providing an effective date; and providing for other matters properly relating thereto” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion.
Councilman Snedden commented he was not in favor of the ordinance and noted the Northern Urban Renewal Area was adopted for purposes of improving the Great Northern Road with five years remaining on the term of the district. He pointed out the estimated cost to improve the road was $13 million and that since the creation of the district, it has collected only $200,000. He raised concern that the purpose of the district won’t be accomplished but is only expanding urban renewal to take advantage of the tax dollars. He stressed the only reason he would support the ordinance was because of the incorrect legal description but that the ordinance lacked vision, clarity and purpose. He hoped urban renewal would move quickly to clarify this matter. Councilman Reuter felt it was not done properly and was rushed. He felt it made sense to use the revenue for the former mill site to encourage development in a positive way. He felt this change should have been incorporated when there was a change to the objectives for the district. He noted the proposed ordinance also included modifications to the creation of the district, as it removes a small area within the urban renewal district. He felt it would be problematic but would go ahead and approve the proposal. Mayor Hellar pointed out the modification was necessary to include the Renova site. Councilman Snedden voiced frustration that this matter was provided to council at the last hour.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge No
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton No
Councilman Snedden Yes
The motion passed by a majority of council present, and the proposed ordinance passed its first reading by title only.
Councilwoman Logan moved that the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and that the ordinance pass its second and third reading under the suspension of the rules. Councilman O’Hara seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Logan echoed the statements from Council members Snedden and Reuter. She felt there was a pattern of inaccuracies from the documents provided to city council. Councilman Boge added that the documentation provided was incomplete and raised concern that it would occur again in the future. Councilman Reuter felt the cost was too high for adjacent residential property owners and that it was a poor decision on the roundabout. He said the only hope was to create the funding necessary to encourage development that would be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. He concurred with Councilwoman Logan’s concern with the inaccuracies in the document.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Snedden Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton No
Councilman Boge No
The motion passed by a majority of council and the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and the proposed ordinance passed its second and third reading under suspension of the rules. The ordinance was considered read, passed and adopted. The ordinance is Number 1222.
J-2. PUBLIC HEARING – CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE REVENUE ALLOCATION AREA AND THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE DOWNTOWN SANDPOINT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
Mayor Hellar announced that the purpose of this public hearing was to hear public testimony regarding changes to the boundary of the Revenue Allocation Area and Urban Renewal Area in the downtown Sandpoint Urban Renewal Plan - No changes are proposed for the objective of this plan which remains as the funding of public infrastructure improvements for the reconstruction of pedestrian and vehicular facilities and other ancillary improvements in the City’s downtown core. In accordance with Idaho Code, notice of this public hearing has been published in the Bonner County Daily Bee on November 14, 2009.
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm stated Chairman of the Urban Renewal Board Eric Paull could not attend this evening’s meeting and that the board recently hired legal counsel. He explained to Councilwoman Logan that the areas added are the blocks covering the proposed Packard Center surrounded by Oak and Church Streets and Boyer and Sixth Avenues and the block surrounded by Church and Pine Streets and Second and Third Avenues. He stated the northern building pad of the Seasons at Sandpoint was also included. Councilwoman Logan felt there was no sense of urgency to modify the boundaries because there are no imminent projects and asked if they could wait to adopt the ordinance until the “curve” ITD property was included. Jeremy Grimm responded he would be meeting with Mr. Paull on Friday as well as a business owner who is interested in relocating his business in Sandpoint within the block south of the Inkwell at Second Avenue and Pine Street. He noted that if the ordinance was adopted this evening, the Urban Renewal Board would have greater latitude to negotiate on projects that may develop in this area.
The mayor advised that the hearing would be conducted in compliance with the
rules previously read.
The mayor opened the public hearing to accept testimony.
Steve Lockwood, 401 Euclid, member of the Urban Renewal Board, stated the board has not taken a position on the “curve”. He pointed out that if modifications were not made now, the board would lose next year’s opportunity to pick up the tax revenue from the three additional areas. He stressed the urgency is because the revenue from these areas would be lost.
Mayor Hellar closed the public hearing.
K-2. ORDINANCE NO. 1223 – DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AMENDMENT
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only. Councilwoman Logan moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, Bonner County, Idaho, adopting an amended revenue allocation area for the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan; adopting an amended revenue allocation area; making certain findings and conclusions in support thereof; providing an effective date; and providing for other matters properly relating thereto” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilman Boge seconded the motion.
Councilman Reuter moved to amend to remove the block surrounded by Boyer and Sixth Avenues and Oak and Church Streets from the ordinance. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. Will Herrington suggested striking any reference to Block 30 within the ordinance. Councilman O’Hara stated his recollection was that the conditions for development of this block include the development east of Sixth Avenue as the proposed motion would be splitting a project in half with the urban renewal boundary. Councilwoman Newton pointed out there was a specific condition that the project can’t go forward unless certain things took place on the adjacent block which is the only reason she supported it. Jeremy Grimm noted the scope of the Packard project is so large that if this block was stricken, there wouldn’t be a substantial impact on capturing the evaluation because he didn’t feel the project would occur within the next year. The motion to amend passed by a majority of council with Council members Boge and O’Hara dissenting.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton No
Councilman Snedden No
The motion passed by a majority of council present and the proposed ordinance passed its first reading by title only and, if applicable, summary was approved.
Councilwoman Logan moved that the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and that the ordinance pass its second and third reading under the suspension of the rules. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Snedden No
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton No
Councilman Boge Yes
The motion passed by a majority of council and the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and the proposed ordinance passed its second and third reading under suspension of the rules. The ordinance was considered read, passed and adopted. The ordinance is Number 1223.
L. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY – BANNING RESTRICTIONS ON BANNERS
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm requested that the DSBA have the opportunity to provide their feedback on this issue. He said if the ordinance was adopted, he would have concerns on the impact of the interpretation of what banners are and that there would be several banners installed all over town. He recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the proposal in order to provide a response to city council. Councilwoman Newton pointed out the proposed language only removes the restriction of 30 days and references banners on vehicles. Will Herrington advised the banner section is part of the sign code and the city’s land use ordinances with Idaho Code requiring land use issues to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He suggested this matter be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation before adoption. Jeremy Grimm noted it was impossible to determine the day businesses installed banners. He suggested defining those standards when banners are allowed and how many banners businesses would be allowed to have.
Councilwoman Logan moved that the banner issue be referred to the Public Works Committee for study and suggestions for city council. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. Councilman Snedden preferred that businesses be allowed one banner sign only but be allowed to leave it up as long as they want. Council members Boge, O’Hara and Newton voted no. Council members Snedden, Logan and Reuter voted yes. Mayor Hellar voted yes. Motion passed.
M. CITY BEACH PARKING FEE
Councilwoman Newton moved to set this matter for public hearing at the January 20, 2010, regular council meeting to consider a $2.00 parking fee to City Beach. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion.
Councilman Reuter moved to table this matter indefinitely, as he felt it was a bad idea. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. Council members Reuter, Snedden and O’Hara voted no. Council members Newton, Logan and Boge voted no. Motion failed.
Councilman O’Hara stressed that a mechanism such as the resort city tax was already in place for revenue. Councilman Boge felt the proposal would create a wrong perception and that counter fees could be implemented by other jurisdictions outside the city.
The motion failed by a roll call vote of council, with Council members Boge, Snedden, O’Hara and Reuter dissenting.
N. SONNELAND BALD MOUNTAIN TRANSMITTER SITE LEASE
City Attorney Will Herrington explained the city had a six year lease with Dr. Sonneland for the transmitter site on Bald Mountain that came up for renewal this year, with city council recently approving renewal of the lease for three years. He noted Dr. Sonneland failed to return the signed lease with payment. He said Dr. Sonneland requested a rate reduction on the lease and to allow assignment to another party to purchase the facility. He stated a determination was needed as to whether to negotiate with the new party to purchase the facility from Dr. Sonneland but didn’t have enough information on the new party. He stated staff has concern with radio interference from the new party. He advised that council approve the decision from the Administrative Committee to terminate the lease with Dr. Sonneland, provide an appropriate time for him to remove his equipment, then to publicize the space or to negotiate with the new party for possible reassignment of the lease. He said the reason this matter was brought to the Administrative Committee and city council was because another party had interest in purchasing the site.
Councilwoman Newton felt staff should not negotiate with the new party until the city notified Dr. Sonneland that the lease is terminated. She felt the mayor could take action on this matter. Mr. Herrington confirmed he would notify Dr. Sonneland that the lease is terminated unless he pays the fee and returns the signed lease. Councilman Reuter felt this matter was an administrative issue with a consensus from council.
O. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY – AMENDMENT TO SANDPOINT CITY CODE 2-1-4-C – QUORUM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
Councilwoman Newton said she brought forward the proposed amended ordinance to the Administrative Committee establishing a quorum of the Planning and Zoning Commission that would require a majority of the full commission. She pointed out that there were only three members at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in September where they made a decision at a public hearing for a variance. She stated the city attorney advised that this matter would need to go before a public hearing. She pointed out that Ordinance No. 351 is the original ordinance that created the Planning and Zoning Commission and was adopted without a public hearing but that Ordinance No. 633 amending the ordinance in 1979 had a public hearing. She noted city code requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission have a set of by-laws which were adopted in 2001 which provides that a quorum is a minimum of four. She stated the proposal would underwrite the by-laws and she felt would not require a public hearing.
Councilwoman Newton moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, amending Title 2, Boards and Commissions, Chapter 1, Planning and Zoning, Section 4 Rules and Organization Sub-section “C” by changing the definitions of a quorum of the Planning Commission and providing for publication and an effective date” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion.
Will Herrington recommended this matter be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation as required by the Local Planning Act. He reviewed the by-laws and confirmed there was inconsistency between the code and the by-laws. He suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission have the opportunity to discuss alternatives to the proposed ordinance. Councilman Reuter suggested there be a requirement that if there was not four affirmative votes that the matter automatically goes to city council. He raised concern that council ignores the advice of the city attorney. Councilwoman Newton stressed that it was important to move this issue forward in order for the code to coincide with the by-laws.
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara No
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Snedden No
Mayor Hellar voted no. The motion to pass its first reading by title only failed.
Councilman Reuter moved that Planning and Zoning Commission consider the proposed ordinance and send their recommendations to city council and to set a requirement as to how many Planning and Zoning members must vote on the affirmative for any matters requiring a final decision that won’t require council action. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion.
Jeremy Grimm stated this matter would be discussed at the January 18, 2010, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, that it would require a 21 day notice for public hearing to be set in February and will be brought back for public hearing to city council in March. Will Herrington noted Idaho Code changed regarding the number of public hearings required and would review the Local Planning Act and city code.
The motion passed unanimously by council.
P. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY – HANDS FREE CELL PHONE USE
City Attorney Will Herrington commented law enforcement supports the proposal but would have difficulty enforcing on a local basis and preferred this matter be a State law. He pointed out he recommended that hands free be implemented for taxicab drivers. He stated the difference was the ability for taxicab drivers to know the restrictions versus people just driving through town unless the city installed signs notifying those who travel through town of the code. Councilwoman Logan questioned why it was difficult to enforce. Mr. Herrington explained that the city has received several complaints from people that they have been harassed by police officers which would only exacerbate the issue. He stated that Washington State has a law but that it’s not a primary offense. Police Chief Mark Lockwood raised similar concerns regarding those who enter town. He preferred that State legislature implement such a law. He pointed out that the city already has a tool for inattentive driving as a primary offense based on Idaho Code.
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only. Councilwoman Newton moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, amending Title 6, Chapter 1, Section 7 by adding sub-section “H” limiting the use of wireless communications devices while operating a motor vehicle or riding/operating a human powered vehicle within the Sandpoint city limits; providing for exceptions; banning text messaging while operating a motor vehicle or riding/operating a human powered vehicle within the Sandpoint city limits; providing for this law to be primary; providing for severability; providing for penalties; and providing for publication and an effective date” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Newton commented that several residents approached her commending her for the proposal saying that they have witnessed several instances where an accident could have occurred based on driver’s usage of cell phones. She told city council to prepare for the consequences if they subscribe to the theory that the proposal doesn’t go far enough and it has to be “all or nothing.” Councilman Boge commented that if the ordinance was adopted, it would push the state legislature in the future to write a law. Councilman Snedden felt it was not necessarily intuitive and would be difficult to enforce just within the city boundaries. He said it would be difficult for the City of Sandpoint to set the law to govern human behavior that will fail at one point and time. Councilman Reuter felt it’s a health issue and raised concern there could be a series of different codes while traveling through different jurisdictions. He suggested adopting a resolution to send to the state legislature. Councilman O’Hara felt Section 1 applied only to text picture and e-mail messaging from an electronic device but had concern to allow hands free use of cell phones. He said there’s an ability to apply reckless and inattentive driving when involving cell phone use. He said there were multiple mechanisms that may be employed to prevent human loss. He raised concern with the proposed ordinance based on jurisdiction, enforcement and the primary and secondary aspects.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara No
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Snedden No
Mayor Hellar voted no. The motion to pass its first reading by title only failed. She suggested that the city adopt a resolution to send to the state legislature.
Q. ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY NO. 1224 – AMENDMENT TO SANDPOINT CITY CODE 2-2-3-B- IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
City Attorney Will Herrington noted that State Code does not require a public hearing but recommended this matter be referred to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for their comments.
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only. Councilwoman Newton moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, amending Title 2 Boards and Commission, Chapter 2, Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Section 2, membership sub-section “B” by adding automatic removal from the committee for missing two consecutive meetings and providing for publication and an effective date” pass its first reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Newton pointed out the Impact Fee Advisory Committee was formed in early 2005 and consists of the entire Planning and Zoning Commission plus two members representing development, building and real estate. She noted that Mr. Albright and Mr. Rimar have missed four out of eight meetings. She said the proposal is that only those who represent development, building and real estate will be automatically removed from the committee if they miss two consecutive meetings. Councilman Reuter didn’t feel this was the best way to accomplish the purpose. He suggested that a majority of city council remove someone from the committee with the ability to say that attendance record is poor with more leeway in making decisions. He wasn’t concerned that members of the committee miss meetings but that city council have the ability to remove them if necessary and not be removed automatically. Councilwoman Newton asked if anyone else on the council was even aware of the committee, who its members were, when it had met or what recommendations it had made to city council. She raised concern as to how city council would even be aware of the need to replace someone. She explained that is why she proposed they be removed automatically.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Snedden No
The motion passed by a majority of council present, and the proposed ordinance passed its first reading by title only and, if applicable, summary was approved.
Councilwoman Logan moved that the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and that the ordinance pass its second and third reading under the suspension of the rules. Councilwoman Newton seconded the motion. She noted the effective date of the ordinance would be January 1, 2010.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Snedden No
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Boge Yes
The motion passed by a majority of council and the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and the proposed ordinance passed its second and third reading under suspension of the rules. The ordinance was considered read, passed and adopted, and the summary was approved. The ordinance is Number 1224.
OLD BUSINESS
G. ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY NO. 1225 – FALSE ALARM
City Attorney Will Herrington noted that in October the police and fire chief worked on a proposed ordinance to provide to the Administrative Committee. He reported the fire chief was not available to provide his input to the proposed ordinance at the October Administrative Committee meeting with the item tabled at that meeting so the fire chief could provide his input and provide a proposed ordinance at the November Administrative Committee meeting. He pointed out the fire chief provided a different proposed ordinance at the November Administrative Committee meeting that concerned only fire department false alarms. He stated the proposed ordinance passed its first reading at the regular city council meeting in November but was sent back to the Administrative Committee for consideration and inclusion of police issues. He said the ordinance was redrafted to include both police and fire false alarms with no objections to the proposals from the police and fire chief. The redrafted ordinance was provided on the December Administrative Committee agenda with Councilwoman Newton objecting to the ordinance. He suggested passing the second reading only as the ordinance includes only fire department false alarms so that staff can bring an ordinance that includes both police and fire false alarms at the regular city council meeting in January.
Fire Chief Robert Tyler noted the only common portion of the proposed ordinance for police and fire was the appeal process. He suggested that council either pass the second and third reading, then law enforcement and legal can bring their proposal next month so both can be codified at the same time or adopt an ordinance in January to include both fire and law enforcement false alarms.
Police Chief Mark Lockwood pointed out that his proposals were taken from the National False Alarm Association model that included a suppression portion with the determination to have provisions to include fines and bring back to city council. City Attorney Will Herrington pointed out an ordinance was provided to the Administrative Committee reflecting both police and fire false alarms including exemptions for schools and medical facilities based on Councilman O’Hara’s concerns and added a provision making fees for those facilities not chargeable for the first two false alarms.
The city clerk read the proposed ordinance by title only. Councilwoman Newton moved that the proposed ordinance titled “An ordinance of the City of Sandpoint, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, pertaining to responses made by emergency service providers to false alarms; providing that fees may be charged for responding to false alarms; providing an appeals procedure; enacting regulations regarding false alarms; providing definitions; providing for severability; and providing for publication and an effective date” pass its second reading and, if applicable, the summary be approved. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Newton raised concern that it was difficult to determine what transpired between the three ordinances that were provided because the staff did not follow standard practice demonstrating tracked changes by the use of strikeouts or underlining. She noted the earlier suggestions from her were totally ignored in the proposed ordinances provided at the December Administrative meeting. She stressed the city council needed to adopt the proposed ordinance and make it effective January 1, 2010, so the fire chief has an ordinance to work from. She stated if the police chief and city attorney can find reasonable ways to present simple language of what they want covered, the ordinance can be amended and codified. She objected to the proposal from the police chief that the city would not respond to an alarm after a certain number of alarms. She noted the reason for the fees was so that the businesses would fix their defective systems. Councilman Reuter was disappointed that the other ordinance that was provided to the Administrative Committee was not provided to the entire city council for review. He didn’t think it would be beneficial to adopt this ordinance in piecemeal.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Boge Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman Reuter Yes
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Snedden Yes
The motion passed unanimously by council, and the proposed ordinance passed its second reading by title only and, if applicable, summary was approved.
Councilman Boge moved that the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and that the ordinance pass its third reading under the suspension of the rules. Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion.
A roll call vote of the council resulted as follows:
Councilman Snedden Yes
Councilwoman Logan Yes
Councilman O’Hara Yes
Councilman Reuter No
Councilwoman Newton Yes
Councilman Boge Yes
The motion passed by a majority of council and the rules requiring three separate readings, once in the ordinance’s entirety, be suspended and the proposed ordinance passed its third reading under suspension of the rules. The ordinance was considered read, passed and adopted, and the summary was approved. The ordinance is Number 1225.
H. ADA AGREEMENT
City Attorney Will Herrington explained the proposed Action Plan addresses the settlement agreement with the Federal Highway Administration and the Idaho Transportation Department. Mr. Herrington confirmed that he would remove Councilwoman Logan’s concerns to strike “City and” from the first bulleted sentence under Inventory, Sidewalks and streets. He added he would also include paragraph headings to the Action Plan and numbered paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.
Councilwoman Newton moved to amend to strike under Public Involvement, first paragraph “citizen organizations (such as the Pedestrian Advisory Committee)” and replace with “city advisory committees or commissions”. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
Councilwoman Newton stressed that the Action Plan needed to be adopted by resolution. Councilwoman Logan suggested that the proposed resolution with the revised Action Plan be on the December 21, 2009, special council meeting agenda.
Councilman Reuter moved to table the matter to provide city staff time to bring a proposed resolution to the December 21, 2009, special council meeting. Councilman Boge seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of council with Councilman O’Hara dissenting.
E-1. POSSIBLE SALE OF OUTSTANDING TREE BOOKLETS
Councilman Reuter raised concern there was undue confusion as to who can have the book at no charge or who will be charged. Councilwoman Newton pointed out the tree committee addressed these concerns with one member of the committee volunteering to make posters to be distributed throughout town where the booklets will be available. The poster will advise prospective buyers that one booklet is available free of charge to each city household.
Councilman Reuter moved to approve the recommendations 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. Councilman Snedden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Gretchen A. Hellar, Mayor
ATTEST: Maree Peck, City Clerk
