HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 20- December 31PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS:
❑ AT LEAST ONE (1) PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
❑ AT LEAST ONE (1) PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
❑ MINIMUM OF TWO (2) NOTICES, AT LEAST ONE
WEEK APART
❑ FIRST NOTICE NOT LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS
BEFORE HEARING
❑ SECOND NOTICE NOT LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS
BEFORE HEARING
❑ IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT
EARLIER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO
ADOPTION
PROPORTIONATE SHARE DETERMINATION:
❑ IMPACT FEES MUST BE BASED ON A
REASONABLE AND FAIR FORMULA
❑ IMPACT FEES MUST NOT EXCEED A
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COST FOR
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE NEW
DEVELOPMENT
❑ PROPORTIONATE SHARE FUNDING
-) CONSIDERATIONS:
• CREDITS
• MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS
• DEDICATION OF LAND
• CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
• USER FEES
• DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
• TAXES
• ALL OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
❑ OTHER PROPORTIONATE SHARE
CONSIDERATIONS:
• COST OF EXISTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
• FINANCING MEANS OF EXISTING SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
• THE EXTENT TO WHICH NEW DEVELOPMENT
WILL CONTRIBUTE TO EXISTING SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
• EXTRAORDINARY COSTS
0 THE TIME AND PRICE DIFFERENTIAL
• THE AVAILABILITY OF OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES
06
Y
ACCOUNTING FOR THE COLLECTION OF IMPACT
FEES
❑ IMPACT FEES MUST BE MAINTAINED IN ONE OR MORE
INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNTS
❑ RECORDS MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR EACH CATEGORY
OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
❑ INTEREST EARNED SHALL BE CONSIDERED FUNDS OF
THE ACCOUNT
❑ EXPENDITURES SHALL BE MADE ONLY FOR SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CATEGORY FROM WHICH THE
IMPACT FEE WAS IMPOSED
❑ AN ANNUAL REPORT MUST BE PREPARED DESCRIBING
THE FEES COLLECTED AND FUNDS EXPENDED BY
CATEGORY
❑ COLLECTED FEES MUST BE SPENT WITHIN FIVE (5)
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COLLECTION, EXCEPT
• CAN BE EXTENDED UP TO EIGHT (8) YEARS FOR
REASONABLE CAUSES
• WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES MUST BE
EXPENDED WITHIN TWENTY (20) YEARS
i
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURG
OCTO$£R 1$, 2000 - 7:30 P.M.
1.. Pledge to the Flag
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
4. New Business:
• Community Campus Complex - Mayor
• Purchase Card Program - Richard
• Kathy LaFollette - Amended Animal Control Proposal
• Angela Brown - Breckenridge Apartments, 226 So. V West
Request for outdoor dance on October 27
• Abigail Caldwell - 34 Carlson Ave.
Request for waiver of Tabernacle Fee for fund raiser
5. Old Business:
• Impact Fees
6. Update on Projects
7. Committee Reports
8. Mayor's Business
9. Approval of Bills
10. Adjourn
IT ISASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMESARE ACCURATE, IFNOT
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULE AS ACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
R
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
............................... -- - -- ------------ - - - - - -- - -
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURG
OCTOBER Y$, 2000 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Pledge to the Flag
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
4. New Business:
• Community Campus Complex - Mayor
• Purchase Card Program - Richard
• Kathy LaFollette - Amended Animal Control Proposal
5. Old Business:
• Impact Fees
6. Update on Projects
7. Committee Reports
8. Mayor's Business
9. Approval of Bills
10. Adjourn
IT ISASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMESAREACCURATE, IFNOT
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULE AS ACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
.......................... ................................ ....... ...................................... ................................................................. -- -- ---- -------------- - - - --- - - - -- --
Amendment to Proposal to City of Rexburg
Animal Control -2000
Prepared by Kathey LaFollette
with recommendations from Dania Wirries
With the arrival of Dania's Dog Foundation and the services that this foundation provide for the
city if Rexburg. I feel that the following changes are warranted in my previous proposal. I have also
taken the time to visit with Dania Wirries to get a better understanding of what she would like to see in
a animal control ordinance. I talked with Glen Pond and he said that rather then granting you a line
item veto he felt it would be better that I make the changes necessary in my proposal.
There has been a proposal made by Officer Poole, and by Dania Wirries to make city dogs tags
available free to the public. It is estimated that there is around 3200 dogs and 3600 cats (this does not
include ferral cats) in the city of Rexburg. At the present there are only around 120 licenses currently in
use in the city. It would be helpful to take some measures to identify and license the dogs so that we
get a more accurate count and therefor be more able to tract an animal back to their owner for legal
recourse. After talking with Dania Wirries I would like to propose that for November and December
2000 that animal licenses be offered for free. To add to this we also could call upon the local Boy
Scouts or seek a volunteer group from Ricks College during the month of November to go door to door
and hand out dog tags and fill out information sheets for each dog and return these to be entered into a
data base for future reference. Then starting in January 2001 reminders that it is time to renew dog
licence be put on the water bill. Then in February written notice be mailed out to all those who have
had a license the past year who have not re- licensed their dog. I still recommend that licencing fees and
penalty fees be increased starting in January 2001.
Dania has also indicated that she would like to see a law made that would declare that every
animal that was impounded would not leave the pound, even to their owner, until they were spayed/
neutered. Dana stated, Dama's Dog Foundation could help with the cost of this law. This would help
with pet overpopulation. I retain that pet owners need to be held responsible for their animals and the
offspring that they allow to be born therefor, to help reduce pet overpopulation caused by excess
breeding, the city should include in it's ordinance:
1) A provision banning the give -away of pets in public places (such as in front of businesses:
Wal -Mart, K -Mart, Broulims, etc.). A common excuse people give for not having their animal
altered is that they think they can always give the puppies or kittens away. This is often done in
front of a public entrance to businesses. In those locations people often make impulsive
decisions and are not really aware or take the time to consider what is involved in providing long
term care for the animal. This is a major cause of animal control problems.
2) Penalizing pet owners who allow their pets to breed freely through higher license fees for
unaltered animals. Both unaltered female pets and unaltered male pets should require a higher
licensing fee. Its is usually the unaltered male dogs that are found out on the road looking for
females in heat. This is also when the male dog is most likely to be aggressive and troublesome.
Therefore an altered male is less likely to contribute to attacks as well as contributing to animal
overpopulation.
I have become aware that the only way that dog licencing are being recorded at this time is on a,
the receipt book. This makes it very hard to follow up from year to year on who has licensed their dogs
j in the past and who is new. Currently any one could choose to pay for their licence at the end of the
year and only pay .50 cents. This happens due to a rate reduction, in section II of the current ordinance,
that is for people who move into the city or obtain a new pet later in the year but the fee reduction is
given to every one. In an effort to help develop more accurate paper work, I feel that a computer data
base be created that will aid in the City of Rexburg and/or the Police Department in keeping a more
accurate picture of the animal count in the city and following up with rabies and spay /neuter laws and in
sending out notice due and notice overdue letters to pet owners who have had a pet licensed in the
previous year, and not followed through in following years. This will help to keep licensing current.
(Refer to enclosed form that would recommend what a data base should include.)
PROPOSED CHANGES IN ANIMAL CONTROL ADMINISTRATION:
1. Provide more then one place for pet owners to obtain animal licensing. (Refer to HSUS
proposals for animal control management)
a) I have been in contact with all three vets in the Rexburg area. All were in favor of
distributing city licenses and collecting fees under the following conditions;
1) The City of Rexburg provide all paper work to be filled out and tags.
2) The veterinarians or their staff must not be required to enforce licensing laws,
only offer it as a service to pet owners.
3) The Upper Valley Veterinary Clinic also added that since the animal control
officer is in and out of their office that he please pick up the paper work and fees
when he is in so that they do not have to deliver it.
b) At rabies clinics held in May of every year.
c) At city hall
d) courtesy booths at Broulims and Albertsons
1) Albertsons and Broulims would be interested in allowing a booth to be set up
in January for a week to renew licences.
2. Send out notices yearly to remind pet owners to get their pet's license renewed.
a) in January 2001 reminders that it is time to renew dog licence be put on the water bill.
b) in February written notice be mailed out to all those who have not complied.
c) Past due notices sent out in May stating late fines will be added if pet is not licensed
by the end of May. Reminder of rabies clinics included in notice.
3. Obtain a computer data base to help track animal licensing.
a) I may have some one who will create a date base and donate an old computer to run it
on. How ever it may not be compatible with the other computers that it may need to link
with. If the city could provide a computer and a current registered copy of File Maker
Pro my source may still provide a database with out fee.
4. When writing out the animal control ordinance have it put in laymen terms for the public and
put operational information in a work book for the law enforcement. This will help so that the
ordinance can be easy to view and understand by the public.
1
PROPOSED CHANGES IN ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE:
1. Licensing of pets:
a) To receive a pet license the pet owner need to be required to show proof of
1)) spay /neuter must be presented in order to get lower fee.
b) Unaltered male and well as unaltered female pets should required a higher licensing
fee.
1) Recommended increase for pet licensing fees:
altered dog from $3.00 to $5.00 per year
unaltered dog from $5.00 to $15.00 per year.
2) Fines for involuntary enforcement of unlicensed animal should be raised from
$15.00 to $30.00. If a pet owner should come in voluntarily to pay for a late
license he /she should not be fined as he is trying to support the law. (Refer to
Sugar City, ordinances and HSUS proposals for animal control management)
c) In order to get a current count of dogs in the city and to obtain a record of pet owners
that can be used to enforce the law the city should consider a time for free licences are
given out to all pet owners.
1) to help with this it is suggested that the we have a volunteer group go door to
door handing out tags and filling out paper work to be put on a data base. (The
Boys Scouts of America was suggested but Ricks college volunteers would be
more reliable with paper work that will be needed.)
2. Running at large or leash law:
a) Fines for violation of leash law should be increased; from $15.00 to $50.00 for first
offense, from $20.00 to $75.00 for the second offence and from $30.00 to$100.00 for
the third offense, and not exceeding should be raised from $100.00 to $150.00 for each
subsequent offense, all involving the same dog. (Refer to Sugar City ordinances and
HSUS proposals for animal control management)
3. Right of entry.
a) The Animal Control Officer or any Peace Officer shall have the right for just cause to
enter upon any private or public property in the City in order to examine or capture any
animal thereon or therein; ( Refer to Las Vagus animal control ordinance)
1) provided, however, that no such officer shall have the right to enter a house or
structure which is in use as a residence without having first secured a search
warrant therefor.
4. Disturbing the peace:
a) Fines for violation of disturbing the peace should be increased to a fine not less then
$30.00 and not exceeding $150.00 from $100.00. (Refer to Sugar City, ordinances and
HSUS proposals for animal control management)
5. Impound of animals:
a) the daily fees for impounded animals should be increased from $2.50 to $4.00 per day
that the animal is kept in the pound.(Refer to Sugar City ordinances and HSUS
proposals for animal control management)
j b) The owner must pay any fines weather the animal is reclaimed or not.
c) any unaltered animal will be spayed/neutered before it can be reclaimed.
1) It should bee taken into consideration that owners, who are financially able
should be made to help pay a portion or all of this service.
d) Any animal with a current dog tag will receive one free ride home in a 12 month
period when picked up with in a hundred mile of it's home.
6. Non - Commercial Kennel License:
a) Fees should be increased; from $5.00 to $30.00 annually for three dogs and fees per
dog will be increased from $1.00 to an additional $10 dollars for each dog over the first
three. (Refer to Sugar City ordinances and HSUS proposals for animal control
management)
1) prevision for Foster Homes when registered to serve the Humane Society or
Dama's Dog Foundation to be exempt from the kennel fees.
2) Foster Homes are not to exceeded 4 dogs, this includes their dogs as well as
foster dogs.
a) an exemption should be made for puppies under three months.
7. Pet Give -Away Prohibition:
a) Include in the Rexburg ordinance a provision banning the give -away of pets in public
places. Example: in front of Wal -Mart, K -Mart, Broulims, etc. (Refer to HSUS
proposals for animal control management)
8. Defined "Owner ":
a) "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, possessing, harboring, or having the
care, custody or control of any animal. ( Refer to Las Vagus animal control ordinance)
=071
Street
City
Owner's Telephone Number
dog / cat / ferret
Color
Weight
age of animal
Certificate of Pet Licence
State
Rabies Tag No.
Date vaccinated
Type of vaccine
Zip
(one year or three year)
Name Breed
Markings
Sex
Spayed
Neutered
�Io
i U
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURG
OCTOBER 4, 2000 - 7:30 P.M.
Pledge to the Flag
1. Approval of Minutes
2. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
3. New Business:
'7:40 Public Hearing - Bonnie Rice - 502 E. 1 a` North
Conditional Use Permit for Apartment in Basement
x/7:50 Public Hearing - Todd Hill - 10 Barney Dairy Road
Zone Change from LI to HBD
L/* Jason Stucki 215 Mohawk
Amend street parking ticketing date
City /County Addressing
Life Safety Recommendations for Apartments - Val Christensen
8. Update on Projects
9. Mayor's Business
• Open House - October 18 - Council doing tours
10. Committee Reports
11. Approval of Bills
12. Adjourn
IT ISASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMES AREACCURATE, IFNOT
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULE ASACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
Proposed Rexburg, Sugar, Mad iso i County
Address Grids
35 38 i 31 32
2
11 1 12
33
34
10
14
- - -- i]
16 15
�
--
�
IL
r
�
n'
..
�.:
.+
23
•Z L
19
"24. 22
i
•
Y
t 3
26
2
3!,
28. 2
S
r-
t
5
•
t
35
-
,
.......... 1;
32
t
33 34
..........
it
6
5
I'I 3
9/27/2000
To Council Member: -
cJ[Oa �� /-/p7�p, /�//, P.O. Box 280
ay� 0/ .l'1Lt�- �''u�QQl%f 12 North Center Street
0 �/ Rexburg, Idaho 83440
STATE OF IDAHO Phone(208)359-3020
Fax (208) 359 -3022
e -mail rexburgQsrv.net
For the last few weeks a committee has been meeting to discuss life safety issues
involved with the inspection of apartment buildings for business license renewal. The
committee members are as follows:
1. Kay Beck (City of Rexburg.Council Member)
2. Joe Laird (City of Rexburg Building Official)
3. Val Christensen (City of Rexburg Building Inspector)
4. Spencer Larsen (Fire Chief)
5. Chris Huskinson (Fire Department Inspector)
6. Scott Richter (State Electrical Inspector)
7. Sharon Tuckett (Ricks College Housing)
8. Bryce Owen (Ricks College Housing)
9. Judy Davis Hobbs (Archibald Real Estate)
10. George Benson (Local Contractor)
11. Ross Farmer (Local Apartment Owner)
12. Van Elg (Rexburg Housing)
The committee has put together the document that follows for your inspection and
approval. The committee can meet again if changes are needed. Thank you for your time
and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Val Christensen
Assistant Engineer
LIFE SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Rexburg requires all new business to apply for a business license.
One of the procedures involving business license renewal is inspection of the business
premises. Since the announcement that Ricks College will become BYU Idaho, many
apartments have changed hands. New business licenses have been applied for and
subsequent inspections have been performed. During these inspections it has become
clear that a list of life safety inspection items needed to be created that would be used as a
minimum standard for these inspections.
The following is a list of life safety issues that the committee felt should be
considered mandatory for all existing apartment buildings applying for a new business
license as well as for all apartments in the Rexburg City Limits. This list is for existing
apartments only. All new apartments and existing buildings being converted to
apartments should be built with the full extent of the Codes that are currently in place.
LIFE SAFETY ISSUES
1.
Adopt Appendix Chapter 34 from the 1997 Uniform Building Code in its entirety.
The code is attached to the back of this document.
2.
If building is known to have been built or converted to an apartment after 1984, it
will be required to upgrade to the code that was in place at the time it was built or
to this list whichever is more conservative.
3.
Require window egress. Require the size requirements of 20" wide, 22" high, but
don't require the minimum opening area of 5.7 square feet. Allow a permanent
object (foot locker or seat) to be built against wall to allow windows with greater
than a 44" high sill to pass. Require window wells to have clear opening of 24" in
front of window and to have steps if window well is deeper than 44 ". Door
hardware must not be able to be locked so that it can not be opened from the
inside without the use of a key or some special knowledge. Aisles, corridors and
hallways or any part of the exit, exit access or exit discharge shall not be blocked
and shall be a minimum of 30" wide. Stairs shall be secure. Guardrails shall be
installed at any walking surface adjacent to a drop of 30" or greater. Doors or any
part of exit, exit access or exit discharge to be in operable condition.
4.
All apartments will be kept orderly for fire safety reasons. Good house keeping is
an immeasurable quality that determines fire safety. Each apartment must have
enough basic storage space for essentials. Exits and access to fire extinguishers
should not be blocked by accumulation of trash debris or personal items.
Garbage and trash need to be removed from the premises on a timely basis. Each
apartment owner or manager shall be responsible for a monitoring program that
provides weekly checks. Outside trash containers must be kept at a proper
distance from building for fire safety.
5.
All apartments shall be equipped with an approved fire extinguisher. The
minimum size is a 2A -1013C. The extinguisher must be mounted in a conspicuous
location near the kitchen. Extinguishers must also be accessible in common areas
such as computer rooms, weight rooms, lounges, game rooms, etc. Extinguishers
must have annual inspection by certified individual or company and have monthly
inspections by owners or managers. If the apartment complex has hallways,
balconies, or any other area used as an egress then extinguishers of type 4A -60BC
shall be placed no further than 75 feet apart. Apartment owners or managers must
keep current records of all inspections. These records may be requested by the
Fire Department at any time.
6. Smoke detectors shall be provided as per Appendix Chapter 34 of the 1997
Uniform Building Code. In addition the detectors shall be placed when on a wall
within 4" of the ceiling and each apartment owner or manager shall check
detectors monthly for operation and for battery function. A record must be kept
of the monthly check. These records may be requested by the Fire Department at
any time.
7. Romex or other wire to be encased in a wall, floor, ceiling cavity or in any NEC
approved conduit or chase. Open wiring is not allowed. Electrical panels must
not be blocked or obstructed in any manner. Electrical panel doors must be able
to be closed and latched. All openings in the service panels must be plugged. All
outlets and switches will have covers. All electrical connections will be provided
with a junction box and cover. No frayed wires. All outlets in bathrooms,
kitchens, garages and outdoors to be replaced with ground fault devices.
Improperly sized fuses or breakers must be replaced with properly sized units.
All wire entrances into metal boxes will be made with NEC approved connectors.
Over loaded panels must be replaced with adequate service. Electrical conduits to
be fastened securely to structure. Overhead wires from out buildings to be at least
10' above any ground surface (including decks or raised walking surfaces). All
stairs between floors to be provided with lighting. Exterior stairs to be provided
with lighting. Heating system shall not require the use portable electric heaters to
adequately heat building. All light fixtures are required to have canopies and to
be securely attached to structure. Extension cords are not allowed to replace
proper wiring. Electrical in general to be in safe working manner. State electrical
inspector to inspect when any question arises.
8. Require all gas meters, pipes or appurtenances to be protected from vehicles.
Require combustion air to gas appliances located in small, unventilated rooms.
Require gas water heaters greater than 4' tall with flexible connections to be
strapped to structure. Require 2" minimum space for flue vents from any
combustible construction. Require 24" clear space in front of water heaters and
furnaces. Gas water heaters or furnaces located in a bedroom or a bedroom closet
must be totally isolated from the bedroom with a tight fitting door and must
receive combustion air from an other source besides the bedroom. Require proper
clearance for heating equipment (water heaters and furnaces). Require that all
high efficiency gas furnace flue discharge points be located in areas that are not
below doors or windows that can be opened or within 4' from such windows or
doors. Storage or trash shall not be allowed within 24" of gas water heater or
furnace. Gas water heater and furnace flues must be connected with 3 screws at
i all joints and must be tightly installed. Require that all gravity venting between
45° and 60° be considered as horizontal venting and require that the total run of
horizontal vent be less than 75% of the vertical height of the vent. Portable gas
heaters are not allowed. Corroded water heaters pressure relief valves must be
replaced.
9. Require back flow prevention for sprinkler systems.
10. All structural components (headers, beams, columns, rafters, trusses, joists,
bearing walls etc.) to be free of rot, free of stress cracks and fastened securely.
Roof to be without leaks.
11. Address must be posted on building so that it is clearly visible from the street with
numbers that are at least 3" high and are a contrasting color from the surface to
which they are mounted.
The above list does not address every safety issue that may present itself. The
inspector at his/her discretion may identify additional safety items that need to be
remedied. The inspector will notify the State of Idaho Electrical Inspector if any
electrical problems exist that are out of the inspector's understanding. It is our intent to
have only one inspector represent the City of Rexburg at time of inspection. The Fire
Department, the Building Department, the Water Department and the Wastewater
Department will combine and supply training for one inspector from the Building
Department and one from the Fire Department. The intent is to have two trained
inspectors with one acting as regular and the other as back -up.
This document is to be put in place immediately following City of Rexburg
Council approval. All apartments seeking a new Business License from the City of
Rexburg shall be inspected and given 3 months to comply. License will not be granted
until work is completed satisfactorily, at which time if owner is not compliant, such
premise shall be vacated until made to conform All apartment owners in the City of
Rexburg not seeking a new business license will be sent notices to supply the City of
Rexburg Clerk with proposals for compliance within 18 months of notice. Owners will
have 3 years from original notice to complete work for compliance or such premise shall
be vacated until made to conform.
i
i
,1997 UNIFORM BUILDING. CODE APPENDIX CHAPTER 34
Appendix Chapter 34
EXISTING STRUCTURES
Division I— LIFE - SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS
OTHER THAN HIGH -RISE BUILDINGS
SECTION 3406 = GENERAL .
3406.1 Purpose. The purpose of this division is to provide a rea-
sonable degree of safety to persons occupying existing buildings
by providing for alterations to such existing buildings that do not
conform with the minimum requirements of this code.
EXCEPTION: Group U Occupancies regulated by Appendix
Chapter 34, Division Il, and Group E, Division 3 Occupancies, except
that Group R. Division 3 Occupancies shall comply with Section 3411.
3406.2 Effective Date. Within 18 months of the effective date of
this division, plans for compliance shall be submitted and ap-
proved, and within 18 months thereafter, the work shall be com-
pleted or the building shall be vacated until made to conform.
SECTION 3407 — EXITS
3407.1 Number of Means of Egress. Every floor above the first
story used for human occupancy shall have at least two means of
egress, one of which may be an exterior fire escape complying
with Section 3407.4. Subject to the approval of the building offi-
cial, an approved ladder device may be used in lieu of a fire escape
when the construction feature or location of the building on the
property makes the installation of a fire escape impracticable.
EXCEPTION: In all occupancies, second stories with an occupant
load of 10 or less may have one means of egress.
An exit ladder device when used in lieu of a fire escape shall
conform with UBC Standard 10 -3, which is a part of this code (see
Chapter 35), and the following:
1. Serves an occupant load of 10 or less or a single dwelling
unit or guest room.
2. The building does not exceed three stories in height.
3. The access is adjacent to an opening as specified for emer-
gency egress or rescue or from a balcony.
4. Shall not pass in front of any building opening below the unit
being served.
5. The availability of activating the device for the ladder is ac-
cessible only from the opening or balcony served.
6. Installed so that it will not cause a person using it to be with-
in 6 feet (1829 mm) of exposed electrical wiring.
3407.2 Stair Construction. All required stairs shall have a
minimum run of 9 inches (229 mm) and a maximum rise of 8 in-
ches (203 mm) and shall have a minimum width of 30 inches (762
mm) exclusive of handrails. Every stairway shall have at least one
handrail. A landing having a minimum 30 -inch (762 mm) run in
the direction of travel shall be provided at each point of access to
the stairway.
EXCEPTION: Fire escapes as provided for in this section.
Exterior stairs shall be of noncombustible construction.
.EXCEPTION: On buildings of Types UL IV and V construction,
provided the exterior stairs we constmeted of wood not less than 2 -inch
(51 mm) nominal thickness..
3407.3 Corridors. Corridors of Groups A, B, E, F, H, L M and R,
Division 1, and S Occupancies serving an occupant load of 30 or
more, shall have walls and ceilings of not less than one -hour fire -
resistive construction as required by this code. Existing walls sur-
faced with wood lath and plaster in good condition or 1/2 -inch
(12.7 ram) gypsum wallboard or openings with fixed wired glass
set in steel frames are permitted for corridor walls and ceilings and
occupancy separations when approved. Doors opening into such
corridors shall be protected by 20- minute fire assemblies or solid
wood doors not less than 13/4 inches (45 mm) thick, Where the ex-
isting frame will not accommodate the 13/4 -inch -thick (45 mm)
door, a 13/8 -inch -thick (35 mm) solid bonded wood -core door or
equivalent insulated steel door shall be permitted. Doors shall be
self - closing or automatic closing by smoke detection. Transoms
and openings other than doors from corridors to rooms shall com-
ply with Section 1004.3.4.3.2 of this code or shall be covered with
a minimum of 3/4 -inch (19.1 mm) plywood or 1/2 -inch (12.7 mm)
gypsum wallboard or equivalent material on the room side.
EXCEPTION: Existing corridor walls, ceilings and opening pro-
tection not in compliance with the above may be continued when such
buildings are protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system
throughout. Such sprinkler system may be supplied from the domestic
water system if it is of adequate volume and pressure.
3407.4 Fire Escapes.
1. Existing fire escapes that, in the opinion of the building offi-
cial, comply with the intent of this section may be used as one of
the required exits. The location and anchorage of fire escapes shall
be of approved design and construction.
2. Fire escapes shall comply with the following:
Access from a corridor shall not be through an intervening
room.
All openings within 10 feet (3048 mm) shall be protected by
three - fourths -hour fire assemblies. When located within a recess
or vestibule, adjacent enclosure walls shall not be of less than
one -hour fire- resistive coustruction.
Egress from the building shall be by a clear opening having a
minimum dimension of not less than 29 inches (737 mm). Such
openings shall be operable from the inside without the use of a key
or special knowledge or effort. The sill of an opening giving ac-
cess shall not be more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor of
the building or balcony.
Fire escape stairways and balconies shall support the dead load
plus a live load of not less than 100 pounds per square foot (4.79
kN /m2) and shall be provided with a top and intermediate handrail
on each side. The pitch of the stairway shall not exceed 60 degrees
with a minimum width of 18 inches (457 mm). Treads shall not be
less than 4 inches (102 mm) in width and the rise between treads
shall not exceed 10 inches (254 mm). All stair and balcony railings
shall support a horizontal force of not less than 50 pounds per lin-
eal foot (729.5 N /m) of railing.,
Balconies shall not be less than 44 inches (1118 mm) in width
with no floor opening other than the stairway opening greater than
5/g inch (16 mm) in width. Stairway openings in such balconies
shall not be less than 22 inches by 44 inches (599 mm by 1118
mm). The balustrade of each balcony shall not be less than 36 in-
ches (914 mm) high with not more than 9 inches (229 mm) be-
tween balusters.
Fire escapes shall extend to the roof or provide an approved
gooseneck ladder between the top floor landing and the roof when
serving buildings four or more stories in height having roofs with a
slope of less than 4 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33.3%
1 -413
,APP16NMX CHAPTER 34
slope). Fire escape ladders shall be designed and connected to the
building to withstand a horizontal force of 100 pounds per lineal
foot (1459 N /m); each rung shall support a concentrated load of
500 pounds (2224 N) placed anywhere on the rung. All ladders
shall be at least 15 inches (381 mm) wide, located within 12 inches
(305 nun) of the building and shall be placed flatwise relative to
the face of the building. Ladder rungs shall be 3/4 inch (19 mm) in
diameter and shall be located 12 inches (305 mm) on center. Open-
ings for roof access ladders through cornices and similar projec-
tions shall have minimum dimensions of 30 inches by 33 inches
(762 mm by 838 mm).
The lowest balcony shall not be more than 18 feet (5486 mm)
from the ground. Fire escapes shall extend to the ground or be pro-
vided with counterbalanced stairs reaching to the ground.
Fire escapes shall not take the place of stairways required by the
codes under which the budding was constructed.
Fire escapes shall.be kept clear and unobstructed at all times and
maintained in good working order.
3407.5 Exit and Fire Escape Signs. Exit signs shall be provided
as required by this code.
EXCEPTION: The use of existing exit signs may be continued
when approved by the building official.
All doors or windows providing access to a fire escape shall be
provided with fire escape signs. _
SECTION 3408 — ENCLOSURE OF VERTICAL
SHAFTS
Interior vertical shafts, including but not limited to stairways, ele-
vator hoistways, service and utility shafts, shall be enclosed by a
minimum of one - hour fire- resistive construction. All openings
into such shafts shall be protected with one -hour fire assemblies
that shall be maintained self- closing or be automatic closing by
smoke detection. All other openings shall be fire protected in an
approved manner. Existing fusible link -type automatic door -
closing devices may be permitted if the fusible link rating does not
exceed 135 °F (57.2 °C).
EXCEPTIONS: 1. In other than Group I Occupancies, an enclo-
sure will not be required for openings serving only one adjacent floor.
2. Stairways need not be enclosed in a continuous vertical shaft if
each story is separated from other stories by one -hour fire - resistive
construction or approved wined glass set in steel frames. In addition, all
exit corridors shall be sprinklered and the openings between the corri-
dor and occupant space shall have at least one sprinkler head above the
openings on the tenant side. The sprinkler system may be supplied
from the domestic water supply if of adequate volume and pressure.
3. Vertical openings need not be protected if the building is protected
by an approved automatic sprinkler system.
SECTION 3409 — BASEMENT ACCESS OR
SPRINKLER PROTECTION
An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in
basements or stories exceeding 1,500 square feet (139.3 m2) in
1-414
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
area and not having a minimum of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) of
opening entirely above the adjoining ground level in each 50 lin-
eal feet (15 240 mm) or fraction thereof of exterior wall on at least
one side of the building. Openings shall have a minimum clear di-
mension of 30 inches (762 mm).
If any portion of a basement is located more than 75 feet (22 860
mm) from required openings, the basement shall be provided with
an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout.
SECTION 3410— STANDPIPES
Any buildings over four stories in height shall be provided with an
approved Class I or Class III standpipe system.
SECTION 3411 — SMOKE DETECTORS
3411.1 General. Dwelling units and hotel or lodging house
guest rooms that are used for sleeping purposes shall be provided
with smoke detectors. Detectors shall be installed in accordance
with the approved manufacturer's instructions.
3411.2 Power Source. Smoke detectors may be battery oper-
ated or may receive their primary power from the building wiring
when such wiring is served from a commercial source. Wiring
shall be permanent and without disconnecting switches other than
those required for overcurrent protection.
34113 Location within Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, de-
tectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally
located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleep-
ing area. Where sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector
shall be placed at the center of the ceiling directly above the stair-
way. Detectors, shall also be installed in the basements of dwelling
units having stairways that open from the basement into the dwell-
ing. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of
the dwelling unit in which they are located.
3411A Location in Efficiency Dwelling Units and Hotels. In
efficiency dwelling units, hotel suites and in hotel sleeping rooms,
detectors shall be located on the ceiling or wall of the main room or
hotel sleeping room. When sleeping rooms within an efficiency
dwelling unit or hotel suite are on an upper level, the detector shall
be placed at the center of the ceiling directly above the stairway.
When actuated, the detector shall sound an alarm audible within
the sleeping area of the dwelling unit, hotel suite or sleeping room
in which it is located.
SECTION 3412 — SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES
Occupancy separations shall be provided as specified in Section
302 of this code. When approved by the building official, existing
wood lath and plaster in good condition or I/2 -inch (12.7 mm)
gypsum wallboard may be acceptable where one -hour occupancy
separations are required.
REVISED
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURG
NOVEMBER 1, 2000 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Pledge to the Flag
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
✓• Senior Center - Pedersen Foundation, Keith Nellesen
4. New Business:
✓7:40 p.m. - Public Hearing - Gene Palmer, 503 N. Hill Rd.
Annexation of Hidden Valley Subdivision
'• Appointment of Emergency Services Chief - Kay
�! Build -out study for Water/Wastewater - John
"s Business Park - MEDCO Proposal
5. Old Business:
va Annexation of residents on 5 "' West/7th South area - Stephen
6. Update on Projects
7. Committee Reports
8. Mayor's Business
9. Approval of Bills
10. Adjourn
IT ISASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMESAREACCURATE, IFNOT
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULE AS ACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
zj
LOCI
DFFICI,
GUM
Siting Cellular Towers
What You Need To -Know
What You Need To Do
I $
natoa
: _
Matl01W WgYS Of CMIOt
nnucna— xaaocr , me
®&A
MAemu�iom�
I $
natoa
I&-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface.................................................................................... ...............................
Acknowledgments u
........................ ...............................
Introduction....................................... ............................... ....1
. ....... ...............................
What Are Cellular and PCS Services and How Do They Operate? ..............................3
Local Zoning Authority over Cellular Antennas and Towers .......... ..............................5
Five Conditions Affecting Local Zoning Authority ........................ 5
..............................
Dispute Resolution 7
................................................. ...............................
Key Elements of a Cellular Tower Ordinance .............................................................. 9
Overview ........................................................................ .............................:.
Defining What Is Covered by the Ordinance ............................:. .......... .............................10
Application Requirements ...... ............................... ................10
. .................................... ...............................
Co- Location ..................................................... ............................... ... .............................10
Joint Ventures and Use of Public Property ........................................................... : 11
.................
Safety............................................................................................................................. .............................12
Aesthetics................................ ............................... .........12
........... ...............................
Lighting, Structural Integrity and Extra/jurisdictional Requirements ....................... .............................13
Maintenanceand Parking .................................................. ...............................
Abandonment... ......................................... ............................... ......................13
............ ..................:............
Things To Think About ............ ............................... ............14
..................................... ...............................
Slang Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
Consensus Building: Government, Citizen and Industry Collaboration ......................15
Telecommunications Advisory Groups ....................................................................... .............................15
Telecommunications Commissions ............................................................................. .............................16
Interagency Wireless Communication Task Forces ..................................................... .............................16
InterlocalCoordination ............................................................................................... .............................16
Industry— Sponsored Meetings ................................................................................... .............................16
CommunityEducation ................................................................................................. .............................17
A Seven Step Telecommunications Strategy Checklist ................... .............................19
Appendix— Resource Contacts ................................................... ......... .....................21
Local Government Associations ....................... ........................... .... - - -- - 11
Local Governments
Federal Communications Commission
Private Sector Associations
V
M
/s_
INTRODUCTION
When President Clinton signed the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 into law, the nation's telecommunications policy
Path was clearly marked. The Act firmly established com-
petition among multiple service providers — not monopoly
control — as the course for the future.
For local governments, the law's impacts will be
considerable. The entry of multiple telecommunications
Providers into the market with new, more efficient
technologies and services can strengthen local economies
by creating jobs and keeping local businesses competitive.
The law also could produce new educational and health
benefits for communities, create potential new revenue
sources for local budgets, and permit cities and counties to
deliver services in new, efficient, and innovative ways. In
addition, advancements in technology — along with
properly - structured and implemented public policies — can
help ensure that all citizens have equitable access to
essential communications services.
Clearly, the development of the local telecommunications
infrastructure will be high on the list of planning priorities
for cities and counties as the 21st century approaches.
The influx of new telecommunications providers also poses
significant challenges for local governments as they perform
their traditional zoning and land use functions. In particular,
the tremendous growth in the personal wireless services
market — including cellular telephones, personal comm-
unications systems, and paging services — has caused the
demand for new facilities to site antennas to grow rapidly.
The-construction of transmitting and receiving antennas,
usually placed on towers, is essential for the effective
operation of wireless services. And the growth in the
number of providers of other telecommunications services,
which often rely heavily on the use of streets and other
public rights -of -way to offer their services, places
considerable new demands — both financial and managerial —
on local governments.
In today's information age, investing in local infrastructure
means not only encouraging and facilitating the use of new
telecommunications networks, but also managing their
integration into the existing infrastructure.
Congress recognized these local responsibilities in the 1996
Telecommunications Act. The Act generally preserves Iocal
goverment authority to manage the use of public rights -of-
way and, with respect to cellular and other wireless services,
to enforce zoning requirements that protect public safety,
Public and private property, and community aesthetics. To
comply with the law and balance community needs,
however, local officials must reassess the ways in which they
make zoning and other land use decisions.
The need for reassessment is most evident in those cities and
counties where multiple wireless companies are seeking to
locate new antenna facilities, usually towers, in residential
and commercial districts.
Local o{fecials must reassess the ways in which
they make zoning and other land use de n s" 'N:
visions._. =;
Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
'
In most parts of the United States, there only are two
companies providing cellular telephone service today. But the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authorized
two more companies to provide personal communications
services (PCS), the next generation of personal wireless
services, in each of the major markets. Soon, the FCC will
authorize up to four more PCS providers in each of the smaller
basic trading markets in the nation.
In many areas, therefore, local officials can expect to see as
many as eight providers seeking facilities to site antennas in
their communities during the next year. The number of such
antennas could grow in the United States by more than six
times — to 120,000 — by the year 2000.
The companies planning to offer PCS service have already
made a huge up -front investment. The federal government
awards PCS licenses through an auction process which to date
has generated almost $20 billion for the federal treasury. Some
PCS providers paid more than $500 million for a license in a
single market. Each provider wants to build its network
quickly and obtain a competitive edge in the market
In addition, consumer demand for personal wireless services is
growing tremendously in response to the introduction of light-
weight portable phones and increasingly affordable rates and
equipment prices. Today, more than 40 million Americans use
these services. That number is expected to grow to more than
100 million by the year 2000. The growth also reflects the
importance of wireless services to businesses in general and to
selected business operations.
Many residents object to the placement of new antennas and
towers in their communities. They are concerned that these
facilities will jeopardize human health and safety, damage
private property, and compromise the community's aesthetics.
They worry that 200 -foot towers may present safety hazards in
bad weather, such as ice storms or hurricanes. They are
unhappy about the prospect of locating unsecured towers near
school playgrounds. They are nervous about the electro-
magnetic radiation generated by a cellular communications
facility. Finally, they do not want to see large, unsightly
antenna towers dispersed throughout the community cluttering
the landscape and reducing their property values.
Local government officials are faced with the challenge of
balancing the demand for wireless service with the concerns of
residents.
2
To date, the response of local governments to the tower siting
dilemma has vaned, ranging from blind acceptance of industry
demands to active participation as parmers in the siting
process. Many cities and counties have amended their zoning
ordinances to accommodate the growth of wireless systems and
the communications needs of residents and businesses while
protecting the public against any adverse impacts. Some
jurisdictions, in the process of reviewing their laws, have
adopted moratoria on the granting of any new applications
pending completion of the review process.
tgs Local governnnent 4cials are faced with the
C4,-challenge of Balancing the demand for wireless
service with the concerns of residents.
Many localities also have formed partnerships to deal effectively
with the siting of cellular towers in their communities. These
partnerships take many forms, including agreements between
service providers and local governments to site antenna facilities
on public property and agreements to construct new towers to
support the facilities of both public and private wireless services
networks. By entering into partnerships, local-governments may
improve their own public safety and other communications
systems and reap additional revenue as well. Some cities and
counties are cooperating across jurisdictional boundaries to
develop a comprehensive uniform approach to the siting of
wireless facilities within their region.
The pages that follow describe what personal wireless services
are, explain what limits the 1996 Telecommunications Act
Places on local government zoning authority, and describe steps
local governments are taking to develop effective cellular tower
ordinances and siting policies.
The guidebook is designed to help local officials meet the
challenge of reconciling industry's goal — the rapid building of
wireless networks — with long -term community goals and the
legitimate concerns residents have about antenna and tower
facilities.
to.
WHAT ARE CELLULAR AND PCS
SERVICES AND HOW DO THEY OPERATE?
Cellular telephone service has been offered commercially for
more than ten years. Prior to the development and introduction
of cellular phone service, mobile telephone service offerings were
limited. The older, non - cellular systems used a single high -
powered radio transmitter to cover an entire community. With
few allocated frequencies and channels, the old systems could
only provide service to a limited number of subscribers.
/ \ Today's cellular systems overcome this limitation by
--/ subdividing their service areas into small cells, each with a low -
powered radio transmitter. With this design, channels may be
reused in the service area; the same channels are assigned to
multiple, nonadjacent cells, significantly increasing the number
of calls the system can handle at any one time and thus the
number of subscribers served. A tail is automatically
transferred from one channel in one cell to another channel in
the next cell as a subscriber moves through the service area.
Most cellular systems today use conventional analog
transmission technology.
PCS is a new technology and a competitor to cellular
telephone service. The first broadband PCS systems began
operations in 1996. PCS systems share the same "cell- shaped"
design that characterizes cellular service. However, broadband
PSC systems may require more antenna sites because PCS
systems operate at higher frequencies than cellular phone
services, frequencies at which the effective coverage area of a
cell decreases. In this band, PCS systems also may provide
other communications services, such as data transmission and
paging, over the same frequencies.
PCS systems also differ from cellular telephone systems because
they use lower power transmitters and digital transmission
technologies. Future PCS services may include computer
networking and wireless Internet access.
Both cellular and broadband PCS subscribers use portable
phones to access or receive calls from the public switched -
telephone network (PSTN) through cell site antenna facilities.
Antenna facilities are connected to a Mobile Telephone
Switching Office (MTSO) by landline or microwave links.
The MTSO is connected by trunks to the PSTN. The MTSO
switches calls between the PSTN and the cell sites.
Cellular and PCS antenna facilities have been installed an
communications towers, water tanks, rooftops, and street lights.
In some areas, facilities have been installed in church steeples,
clock towers, or camouflaged as artificial trees to address
aesthetic concerns of the community.
Communications towers take many forms and vary significantly
in height. A tower may be free standing or "guyed," anchored
with cables. A guyed tower needs significantly more land than
a free standing tower. Free standing or self - supporting towers
include monopoles and three- or four -sided steel - lattice towers.
Tower and tower foundation specifications depend on a variety
of factors including design load, wind speed, ice load, soil
conditions, building code requirements, and antenna loading.
Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
Facilities have been installed in church steeples,
clock towers, or camou}iaged as artificial trees.
\1'hecher the antenna is insndlvd on :, C, :nnunuc,uiom t ;'llcr
or on another structure. an Antenna-, he:cht Jcpends on <evQr:d
factors, ineluJin_ the nulge and char.ec,rrtly of the
geographic area it is expected n' set c. Anrenna t, racer'
generally range in height from 50 a „tcer. In
1. n1e remote
areas they nlav even reach 500 feet. -m n limber of antennas
in a communir also depends on sc1 �rai'.r, t.'r,, nnist
commonly service demand and bail x. _:.{pi1c. A, a s% rent
grp)ws. the number of antenna site! incrc :•ems as dmnnels arc
reused at closer inten-als to acconvn,,,:Jto more .ubNcrikcr,,.
M, I 1 11ok- dNL'lil c.I 1, a 1,;11 in Irev
4
,6
to_
LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY OVER
CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND TOWERS
Local governments exercise zoning authority to protect the
health and safety of residents and to ensure orderly land use
development. Local officials also use zoning to preserve the
aesthetic character of the community and guard against new
land uses that clutter up neighborhoods with unsighrly facilities.
To a great extent, the 1996 Telecommunications Act
specifically protects local zoning authority over the placement
of cellular towers. At the same time, however, the law places
some new federal restrictions on that authority.
The Act addresses the issue of local zoning authority over
wireless telecommunications facilities in three ways. First, it
establishes a general principle that local zoning authority is
preserved, subject to certain conditions. Second, it lists the
conditions that local zoning requirements must satisfy. Third,
it identifies which disputes will be handled by the courts and
which will be handled by the FCC.
Five Conditions Affecting Local Zoning Authority
If local zoning requirements satisfy certain conditions, nothing
in the 1996 Telecommunications Act limits or affects the
zoning authority of local governments over the placement,
construction, and modification of wireless telecommunicatons
facilities. In order to maintain their zoning authority over
wireless telecommunications facilities, local governments must
satisfy five conditions.
1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably
discriminate among wireless telecommunications providers
that compete against one another.
TThis requirement does not mean that local governments must
L_. reat competitive providers in exactly the same way if their
proposed facilities present different zoning concerns. Congress
intended to give local governments flexibility in this area. The
law recognizes, for example, that a proposed 50 -foot tower in a
residential district presents different concerns than a 50400t
tower in a commercial district, even if the two towers are going
to offer services that compete with one another. As a result,
applications to site these facilities may be treated differently.
Another defensible difference in treatment of providers
interested in siting facilities might be the order or timing of a
particular request if it is for use on a limited capacity tower site.
As a general nrle, however, local governments should avoid
making zoning decisions that give one provider of wireless
service a competitive advantage over another. Under the law,
if a local government has no rational basis for making a
distinction between providers whose facilities have identical
characteristics, differential treatment of those providers is
prohibited. For example, a zoning ordinance that permits one
provider of wireless services to construct a tower in a
commercial district, but prohibits the construction of a
similarly sized tower by another provider in that same
commercial district with no other distinguishable differences in
impact, is probably inviting a challenge based upon
unreasonable discrimination.
2- Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
telecommunications service.
This requirement is designed to prevent local governments
from imposing outright bans on wireless telecommunications
services. However, local ordinances may limit the number and
placement of facilities so long as those limits do not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting a wireless relecommunications
5
Sltiing Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
i
provider's ability to offer service. An ordinance might include
such severe restrictions on the placement and number of towers
in a community that they interfere with the reception of a
signal and make it impossible to deliver service. In such a case,
the fact that a local government ordinance permits the siting of
cellular towers is insufficient to meet the requirements of the
Act if the community retrains unable to receive satisfactory
service.
There is no requirement that every local community have a
cellular tower. The Act says that there should be no
prohibition on the service; it says nothing about the specific
facilities. Therefore, a community of small geographic size
might be able to limit the number of towers, or avoid a cellular
tower completely, if it can demonstrate that subscribers can
receive adequate service from towers located outside the
jurisdiction's corporate boundaries.
Some local governments have instituted temporary freezes or
moratoria on the granting of facility siting permits in order to
review the requirements of the 1996 Act, develop relevant
ordinances, and make long -term land use assessments. The
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has
challenged such moratoria before the FCC, claiming that they
are a barrier to market entry and violate the Act. At least one
court has determined that a short moratorium is not a
"prohibition on wireless facilities, nor does it have a prohibitory
effect. It is, rather, a short term suspension of permit issuing
while the city gathers information and processes applications."
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. City of Medina , Washingum.
Instituting moratoria on the processing of applications and the
granting of tower siting permits should not become a regular
practice by local governments. If a locality determines that a
brief moratorium is necessary in order to develop a procedure
for the effective handling of siting requests, the FCC (in its
Fact Sheet on National Wireless Facilities Siting policies)
recommends that the locality communicate with wireless
service providers about the intended duration of the
moratorium, the tasks the locality wishes to accomplish during
the moratorium, and the ways — such as by providing additional
information about facilities and services — in which the
providers can assist the locality in ending the moratorium.
There is no requiremertt thou every local
community have a cellular tower.
6
. , —Q r
3. A local government must act within a reasonable period of
time on requests for permission to place or construct wireless
telecommunications facilities.
The time taken to act on an application will be considered
reasonable if it is no longer than the time the local government
usually takes to act on other requests — such as zoning variances
— of comparable magnitude that have nothing to do with
telecommunications facilities. The Act does not require local
governments to give preferential treatment to zoning requests
involving telecommunications facilities — such requests can
wait their mm. The request should not be moved down the list,
but it does not have to be moved up the list.
4. Any city or county council or .zoning board decision
denying a request for permission to install or construct
wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and
must be based an evidence in a written record before the
council or board.
This requirement may necessitate a considerable change in
practice for some local governments, since it means that
written proceedings on a zoning application must be produced.
This can be done by having the proceedings transcribed and by
requiring the applicant, the city or county staff, and any
interested members of the public to submit their comments and
arguments in writing to the council or board. Local
government staff must ensure that any facts or arguments on
which the council or board may.rely in denying a request are
included in the transcribed hearing or written filings submitted
to the council or board before its decision is made. The
decision itself also must be in writing and contain reasons that
are consistent with the Act's requirements. Localities should
consult extensively with city or county attorneys to implement
this requirement.
5. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical
emissions standards set by the FCC, it is presumed safe. A
local government may not deny a request to construct a
facility on grounds that its radiofrequency emissions would be
hannfid to the environment or the health of residents if those
emissions meet FCC standards.
The Act gives the FCC, not local governments, the sole
authority to determine what standards wireless facilities must
meet to ensure that their mdiofrequency emissions do not harm
humans or the environment. While local governments can
require facilities to comply with the FCC emissions standards,
they may not adopt their own standards. If the facilities meet
FCC emissions standards, concern about the effects of
1
M
LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY OVER CELLULAR ANTENNAS AND TOWERS
emissions from cellular towers on the health of nearby residents
is not a permissible reason for making zoning decisions about
the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities.
The Act does not require local governments .
to give preferential treatment to ,Zoning requests
invoWng telecommunications facilities.
On August 6, 1996, the FCC adopted revised guidelines
(Report and Order, FCC 96 -326) for evaluating the
environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions. Copies of
the FCC's Report and Order adopting these guidelines can be
obtained from the FCC's duplication contractor, International
Transcription Service, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037,202-857-3800.
Localities can require providers to comply with other federal
regulations prior to issuing a tower construction or
modification permit. For example, towers taller than 200 feet
and located within a certain distance of airport runways must
be registered with the FCC. The FCC works with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that such towers are
appropriately constructed, marked, painted, and lighted so that
they do not create a hazard to air navigation.
Towers also must comply with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirements of
those regulations implementing NEPA affecting wilderness
areas, wildlife preserves, endangered species, historical sites,
Indian religious sites, floodplains, wetlands, high intensity
white lights in residential neighborhoods, and radiofrequency
emissions in excess of the FCC's guidelines.
Dispute Resolution
If a wireless provider claims that a local government has violated
any of the first four conditions above, that provider must seek
relief in a state or federal court, not from the FCC. This
Provision in the Telecommunications Act was a victory for local
governments. State and federal courts provide a more neutral
and much less costly arena for parties to resolve disputes than the
FCC, where industry attorneys have a decided financial and
practical advantage over city and county attorneys.
A disappointed applicant may go to the FCC only if it claims
that the locality improperly based its adverse siting decision on
the harmful effects of radiofrequency emissions from the
proposed facility.
d
t Siting Cellular Towers:, What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
Antenna 1 rr.n, insta I I: It inn.m csi'Iin_ tran,mi.,mon t, wer,
i'
i. -
KEY ELEMENTS OF A CELLULAR TOWER ORDINANCE
A local government normally has in place a general zoning
ordinance which it periodically reviews and revises in light of
societal, technological, and other changes. Following the
deregulation of the telecommunications industry by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, communities across the
United States witnessed a dramatic increase in wireless
facilities applications.
Many cities and counties found themselves without an
\ adequate framework to deal with these rapidly proliferating
technologies. In some places, local governments were better
prepared because the early growth of the cellular telephone
industry in their areas had led to comprehensive land use and
zoning procedures for the siting of towers. Other communities,
realizing the changes that would occur with deregulation,
began to restructure their ordinances even in advance of the
federal legislation. Most cities and counties, however, have
been handling siting requests on a case -by -case basis while
trying to educate themselves and their constituents about these
new technologies and the most effective means for integrating
them into the fabric of the community's life and landscape.
Overview
To begin implementing the provisions of the 1996 Act, local
governments must have or enact zoning ordinances that
consider the placement of cellular towers in local communities.
After reviewing the Act's provisions, local officials should have
appropriate personnel review the locality's toning ordinance.
Many communities may find that they have no local ordinance
regulating the placement of cellular towers, that their current
ordinance completely prohibits towers, or that it is not
designed to accommodate emerging technologies such as
personal communications services. Any of these situations
presents a problem for the locality.
In the absence of an ordinance, the industry might argue that it
has a right to place towers in any location in the community.
On the other hand, an ordinance that bans the placement of
towers anywhere in the community violates the 1996
Telecommunications Act if the ban prohibits access to the
services provided by the industry.
Local shoUid `'"
o}�cuiLc have appropYwte�,sm.
review the`locaLty'sn8 `
In drafting or reviewing local zoning ordinances, localities
should remember that they can regulate the placement,
modification, and construction of a tower so long as the
regulation does not preclude the ability of a consumer to use
wireless services. Otherwise, localities are free to enact
ordinances that permit-the placement of towers in accordance
with the concerns and needs of the community.
While ordinances are as different as the city, town, or county
for which they are written, local governments should consider
including the criteria and examples in this chapter as they
review and revise their laws. These examples are cited because
they balance three important things: 1) the need to protect
communities from the disadvantages of uncontrolled
proliferation and placement of wireless facilities, 2) the
legitimate desires of local citizens to access and use the new
technologies as quickly as possible and 3) the legitimate right
of businesses to exercise free trade.
Some ordinances are general and some are very specific.
Approaches vary with the problems that are foreseen. For
example, Greenburgh, New York, has set up a "tiered" system
of acceptable sites. Commercial locations are favored
9
Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
whenever possible and a service provider must appear before
the zoning board if a commercial location cannot be found.
The next favored site is a nonresidential zone, then a
residential zone, but, "no less than 350 feet from schools, parks,
playgrounds, day -care centers and health -care facilities."
In Kansas City, Missouri, the Mid - America Regional Council
has produced two useful booklets for its member governments.
The "Wireless Telecommunications Tower Ordinance Guide"
is a reference manual drawing on local ordinances and model
ordinance documents from across the country. The "Wireless
Guidance Package" discusses of standards, protocols and other
criteria to be considered in revising telecommunications
ordinances.
Other localities have formed various types of task forces. The
Memphis /Shelby County, Tennessee Office of Planning and
Development formed its wireless communications task force
with representatives of the local government, the electric, gas
and water utilities, and the wireless companies. Martin
County, Florida officials set up a task force on which they
invited all interested participants to become involved. The
f goal of the task force was to become acquainted with the
- Telecommunications Act and how it affects local governments.
Defining What Is Covered by the Ordinance
The first part of the ordinance should provide a full and
complete definition of what the ordinance intends to cover.
Modem technology evolves so rapidly that trying to describe
the full array of currently available wireless facilities is difficult.
Several major types of facilities have been used for
telecommunications transmissions, however. They include
broadcasting towers, two -way radio towers, fixed point
microwave dishes, commercial satellites and receiving dishes,
and, most recently, cellular and PCS tower;.
In order for local officials, industry representatives, and the
public to engage in discussions about the siting of
telecommunications facilities, and to make accurate decisions
about their placement and construction, the ordinance should
define each type of wireless facility and be amended, as
necessary, to accommodate technological changes. The
Jefferson County, Colorado Telecommunications and Land Use
Plan, adopted May 8, 1985, amended January, 1993 and June,
1995 is an excellent example of how this definition should be
written. It defines facilities in detail and includes pictures of
various types of facilities in the text of the ordinance.
10
The ordinance should define
- each type of wireless facility.
Application Requiremods
Application requirements and procedures for telecommun.
ications providers requesting a permit to site a wireless facility
are also of primary importance since a clear, concise application
often can avert future problems. Jefferson County, Colorado
provides an excellent explanation of what it requires from any
tower applicant Its provisions demonstrate serious research by
the county's planning department and other local agencies and
indicate that a fair and efficient review process is in place.
Their ordinance requires that applicants provide:
• site and landscape plans drawn to scale;
• a report including a description of the tower with
technical reasons for its design;
• documentation establishing the structural integrity for the
tower's proposed uses;
• the general capacity of the tower, and information
necessary to assure that ANSI standards are met;
• a statement of intent on whether excess space will be
leased;
• proof of ownership of the proposed site or authorization to
utilize it;
• copies of any easements necessary;
• an analysis of the area containing existing topographical
contours; and
• a visual study depicting "where within a three mile radius
any portion of the proposed tower could be seen."
This ordinance and its accompanying "Low Power Mobil Radio
Communications Land Use Plan Addendum" are
recommended reading for any locality dealing with cellular
siting issues.
Co- Location
Local ordinances often require service providers to maximize
the use of an existing or proposed wireless tower through co-
location. Co- location occurs when two or more providers
place their transmitting facilities together in the same location
or on the same tower or monopole. These facilities may
provide identical, competing services or a varier• of different
f
1
KEY ELEMENTS OF A CELLULAR TOWER ORDINANCE
telecommunications services. By using existing towers or poles,
the need to erect new structures can be reduced and their
overall visual presence in a jurisdiction can be minimized,
without compromising their technical utility.
Although competitors may complain, most communications
cowers can — and typically do — carry several transmitters of
different providers. A local government that wants to
encourage co- location may want to provide incentives, such as
a shorter processing time for applicants who are willing to
locate on a tower that has already been approved. (This would
be based on the reasonable conclusion that such a sire requires
less additional evaluation compared to the legitimate
evaluation and review needed for a new site.)
Another way to foster co- location is to require that service
providers exhaust all possible avenues for sharing space before
granting a permit for a new tower. Carroll County, Maryland's
Ordinance No. 122 requires the applicant for a tower siting to
show the need for the tower and ro show that all alternatives to
the construction of a new tower have been exhausted. The
ordinance also requires the applicant to submit an affidavit
stating that space on the proposed tower will be made available
to future users when technically possible.
Most communications towers can —
and typically do — carry several transmitters
of different providers.
Local governments may specifically require in their ordinances
that competitors cooperate and negotiate fairly with each other
regarding co- location leases. To facilitate co- location among
competitors, local governments also may request that providers
in an area develop plans for co-location when building their
systems. Service providers have been reluctant to engage in
such collaborative planning, arguing that cooperation among
competitors could raise antitrust concerns. Local governments
have a right, however, to adopt ordinances that promote co-
location among providers as long as they do not discriminate
among them.
When construction of a new facility is needed, local
governments may require that the structure be built with the
capacity to enable co- location. The Wentzville, Missouri
ordinance is a good example of this. It states, "If a tower is
constructed, it shall be three times the capacity of intended use
in order that secondary users could lease the balance of the
tower capacity at a reasonable rate."
In Palm Beach County, Florida, tower applicants must send a
certified -mail announcement to all other rower users in the area,
stating their siting needs and/or sharing capabilities. Applicants
cannot be denied space on a tower unless mechanical, structural,
or regulatory factors prevent sharing. Other local ordinances;
including those of Jefferson Counry, Colorado, Oldham County,
Kentucky, and Multnomah County, Oregon, offer detailed
examples of co- location provisions and leasing terms.
Joint Ventures and Use of Public Property
Local govemments can invite private telecommunications
providers to bid on the construction of towers which would be
shared by the local government for public safety communi-
cations and by the telecommunications provider for its own
needs.
Examples of joint venrures include: leasing space to telecom-
munications providers on an existing or new public safety
tower; leasing space to telecommunications providers on public
structures that are not otherwise used for telecommunications,
such as a water tower or on top of a city or county office
building; leasing street light stations and publicly -owned utility
poles; or leasing publicly -owned land for construction of
wireless facilities. Local governments also may consider
constructing new towers on publicly -owned lands expressly for
the purpose of generating lease revenues from providers who
will site their facilities on such towers.
A city or county that seeks to construct or lease public property
for use by telecommunications providers must take care to
subject its own site and structural plans to the same close
scrutiny that it expects of outside applicants. Otherwise its
actions, though serving the public interest, may be challenged as
discriminatory by wireless providers or private property owners.
Local governmerits also may consider
constructing new towers on publicly
owned lands.
Local governments should also remember that as a tower owner
they may incur additional liabilities and that leasing public
structures requires compatibility reviews. For example, if a
single water tower serves the entire community, the risks of
damage or water contamination may outweigh the benefits of
co- location. Any structure chat has a radio antenna on it that
extends more than 20 feet above the structure also is subject to
FCC and FAA aeronautical limitations and requirements and
must be registered with the FCC by the owner. Moreover,
11
(ti "
i Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
federal law makes the tower owner, not just the wireless service
provider, responsible for safety, compliance with FCC and FAA
rules, and other regulations, including painting and lighting.
In this context, the term "tower" includes anv structure to
which an antenna is attached, including buildings.
The management responsibilities involving multiple user
antenna sites can be time consuming, and the local
government may wish to hire a site manager, using a
percentage of the rental revenue.
The City of Greensboro, North Carolina plan calls for the city
to lease city property for communication tower construction.
The city also identified existing city facilities that can
accommodate antennas. The City of Sunnyvale, California
entered into an agreement to issue permits to use city-owned
light poles and traffic signals for installation of communications
equipment in exchange for a fee and other services.
The management responsibilities
involving multiple user antenna sites
can be time consuming.
Most ordinances require some setback from adjoining property
lines. Setback distances are the minimum distance between
the tower and the site's lot lines. These are usually expressed as
a percentage of tower height. In tower siting, setbacks are
useful for their aesthetic impact and to establish safe zones for
falling tower debris or collapse.
Prince George's County, Maryland has adopted art extensive
ordinance with standards that affect the installation of towers,
the equipment building, and accompanying landscaping. The
ordinance includes a section that not only sets the height and
the setback requirements, but also states what color the tower
must be painted. Durham, North Carolina includes a special
section on "Dimensions" in its ordinance. This section
includes specific dimension requirements for towers as well as
setbacks, minimum lot size and buffers. Like many other
communities, the City of Roswell, Georgia adopted an
ordinance requiring a setback equal to the height of the tower.
While numerous studies have been conducted by scientists, no
study can successfully alleviate concerns with positive proof
_,IZat there are absolutely no health risks associated with the
radiofrequency emissions emanating from antennas and other
wireless facilities.
12
- "CAN
In tower siting, setbacks are useful for their
aesthetic impact and to establish safe zones for
falling tower debris or collapse.
Some localities, such as Oldham County, Kentucky, Jefferson
County, Colorado, Multnomah County, Oregon, and King
County, Washington, use setbacks in an effort to address the
issue of potential health risks of electromagnetic radiation. For
example, the Jefferson County, Colorado telecommunication
plan suggests practical measures to reduce exposure to residents,
such as placement of facilities on tall, existing towers or
buildings, an adequate buffer separating towers from residential
and commercial uses, and a calculation of expected
radiofrequency levels for the habitable structure nearest to the
proposed tower. In Greenburgh, New York's ordinance, the
health issue is addressed by creating a body to monitor
antennas to make sure that federal emission standards are met.
It is financed by an escrow account made up of a percentage of
permit and leasing fees.
Aesihedcs
Another major consideration for many communities is the
aesthetic quality of cellular towers and their compatibility with
adjoining property. In order to maintain the aesthetic and
historic nature of Mount Vernon, the home of George
Washington, a cellular tower has been camouflaged as a tree.
Other towers have been mounted on billboards or hidden in
church steeples.
The Orange County, Florida ordinance requires careful design,
siting, landscape screening, and camouflaging to maintain the
aesthetic quality of the surrounding area. It requires
landscaping and screening materials to be installed including "a
row of shade trees a minimum of 8 feet tall and a maximum of
10 feet apart planted around the perimeter of the fence; and a
continuous hedge at least 30 inches high at planting capable of
growing to at least 36 inches in height within 18 months
planted in front of the tree line referenced above." A Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana ordinance requires certain. towers to be
disguised as trees and be "aesthetically and architecturally
compatible with the environment."
Aesthetic considerations and requirements extend to the
treatment of wireless facilities when placed on buildings,
whether historic or contemporary. The San Francisco,
California ordinance establishes guidelines for rooftop
installation of antennas. The Plano, Texas ordinance allows an
KEY ELEMENTS OF A CELLULAR TOWER ORDINANCE
antenna to be attached to the facade of a building as long as it
is painted to match the structure. It also allows installation of
wireless facilities on roofs and on electric and water towers as
long as they do not exceed a certain height.
Jefferson County, Colorado established visual impact policies in
its Telecommunications Plan. It devotes an entire section of its
ordinance to minimizing the visual and noise impacts of
communications equipment. It states that telecommunication
facilities "should result in a minimal visual impact for those
residents in the immediate area and for those in the larger
community who view these facilities from a distance." To assist
communities in minimizing visual impact, the ordinance
provides examples and measures that can be implemented for
both new and existing structures. These include providing a
three-year time period for existing sites to comply with
requirements to make "equipment buildings compatible with
the surrounding area by considering coloring, texture of
materials, landscaping and screening."
Lighting, Structural Integrity, and Extra -
jurisdictional Requirements
Lighting for communication towers is required when the towers
are tall enough to be under FAA regulation. The Jefferson
Parrish, Louisiana ordinance states, "When lighting is required
and is permitted by the FAA or other federal or state authority,
it shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding
residential property."
The ordinance prepared by the City of Durham, North
Carolina requires ail towers to comply with the lighting restric-
tions of the FAA and conform to all applicable building
requirements. To ensure a tower's structural integrity, Green -
burgh, New York's ordinance requires an operational certificate
prepared by a professional engineer from the owner or operator
of a new tower within 45 days of the initial operation. This
certification must indicate compliance with all applicable
regulations.
Lrghting for communication towers is
required when the towers are tall enough
to be under FAA regulation.
The sample ordinance guide prepared by the Mid - America
Regional Council includes sample wording for a building code
prepared by the Atlanta Regional Commission. This paragraph
requires that towers comply with the standards published by
the Electronic Industries Association and all applicable local
building codes.
Maintenance and Parking
A few local ordinances include standards for maintain_ ing the
tower or antenna facility as well as for parking. The
Multnomah County, Oregon ordinance addresses most
extensively the issue of facility maintenance. It includes a
requirement to describe anticipated maintenance needs,
including frequency of service, personnel needs; equipment
needs, and traffic, noise, or safety impacts of such maintenance.
It also suggests that the transmission facility be automated "to
the greatest extent possible to reduce traffic and congestion."
Parking requirements generally do not apply to cellular towers
unless the equipment building is staffed.
Abandonment
As both technologies and business conditions change,
providers may occasionally find that they no longer need
previously - constructed towers. Most ordinances restrict the
time in which an unused tower may stand to between six and
18 months, with some requiring the tower applicant to cover
the demolition costs. A few have penalties if the tower is not
removed within the designated time. The Wentzville, Missouri
ordinance requires "the owner to provide the city with a copy
of the notice to the FCC of intent to cease operations and ...
(gives) ninety days from the date of ceasing operations to
remove the obsolete tower and accessory structures."
While concern with the abandonment of structures is focused
on towers and monopoles today, community ordinances may in
time need to address the abandonment of smaller antennas and
other facilities mounted on rooftops and other locations, as
changing technologies eventually make them obsolete.
13
, ) I, 11
Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
lbings To Tiffin
■ Does Your current ordinance directly prohibit wireless
facilities and services or unintentionally discriminate
against any category of provider?
■ Is the volume of applications for site permits such that`.' - ,
You need time to review and revise your ordinance?
Have you discussed moratoria with your city or county
attorney? Have you organized a process of research and:'
d
citizen involvement to minimize the length necesi�ry'.,
.. -,
a moratorium? Have you informed both industry and Ie--
public about its purpose, procedures, and duratij;ti
■ Have you considered how you will develop a wri tten' _ �11;..;t��
record to justify your zoning actions concerning
towels
and antennas under the new Act?
■ What steps can you take with local media, wireles . 5
providers, and others to educate the public abouiih_�'q
new technologies and ways to accommodate thei1iMLA
your Community?
■ Is it feasible to create an advisory C'O
industry and civic representation to develop
comprehensive wireless strategy for your community
aE
a set of guidelines for the preferred placement and d6h
treatment of necessary facilities?
14
%,
I#-
CONSENSUS BUILDING: GOVERNMENT, CITIZEN,
AND INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
Planning for the siting of towers and antennas provides an
excellent opportunity for citizens to become connected to local
government and involved in local decision - snaking. It can also
provide an opportunity for local elected leaders, department
heads, and citizens to coordinate their efforts and to gain a
better understanding of the telecommunications industry.
Siring decisions affect citizens where they live and work. They
also can affect the local economy — the availability of local
telecommunications infrastructure is an important factor in
attracting new businesses and industries and in retaining
existing ones. Because these issues are important to
communities, citizens should welcome the opportunity to
provide input into the decision - making process and become
more informed about siting issues.
The variety of approaches to integrating community and
industry concerns into the siting of towers and antennas can be
as broad as the variety of technologies involved. By involving
both the community and industry early in the planning
process, local governments can develop a sustainable
telecommunications strategy to foster competition among
wireless service providers and ensure that community aesthetics
and property values are preserved.
Local governments have implemented a number of effective
approaches to involve citizens and industry in the development
of local plans concerning tower and antenna siting. These
approaches range from traditional public hearings run by local
councils, planning commissions, or public agencies involved
with telecommunications, to the establishment of independent
advisory groups, commissions, task forces, education programs
and industry- sponsored meetings. lnterlocal working groups
also have been created to facilitate coordinated planning for
wireless facilities among neighboring localities.
Local governments have implemented a rit�mber..
of effective approaches to involve citizens and
t in the deve `>
'ndusery lopnter,t of local hlatts
concerning tower and antenna siting.': '
By involving citizens in issues related to telecommunications,
local governments can obtain assistance from them in guiding the
decision - making process and removing potential barriers to both
government and industry action. Citizens who are able to express
their concerns, participate in discussions, and make an impact are
more likely to support the final decisions of local leaders.
Telammmunications Advisory Groups
The creation of telecommunications advisory groups can help
bridge the gaps between the community, local governments,
and industry when developing local telecommunications plans.
For example, when Jefferson County, Colorado was faced with a
considerable demand for telecommunications facilities, the
County Commissioners appointed a telecommunications
advisory group (TAG). The group was comprised of ten
volunteer representatives from the local community, industry,
and public agencies. The committee was charged with
developing a set of policies to be used as a guide for making land
use decisions on the siting and design of towers and antennas.
The TAG, working with county planning staff, considered issues
such as the demand for new towers and antennas, engineering
1s
Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
and economic concerns, visual and noise impacts, residential
interference, and property values. Decision - making was done
by consensus to ensure that the TAG's recommendations were
not biased in favor of any interest group.
Once the TAG completed its recommendations, the county
planning commission held public hearings and solicited written
public comment. Once the commission considered public
comments, changes were made to the recommendations and
the commission adopted them as a telecommunications land
use plan.
Telecommunications Commissions
In July 1996, San Francisco, California approved the creation
of a new Department of Telecommunications. The department
took over functions previously handled by several other
departments, with special attention paid to tower and antenna
sitings. A five- member Telecommunications Commission
appointed by the mayor has oversight responsibilities for the
department. The commission is comprised of community
residents, local government officials, and people with an
industry perspective.
Interagency Wireless Communications Task
Forces
The Memphis /Shelby County, Tennessee Office of Planning
and Development formed a wireless communications task force
to analyze, ways in which the city and county can accommodate
industry growth while minimizing the effect that tower sitings
may have on residential neighborhoods. The task force
consists of representatives from city and county governments,
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, and the city's
competing wireless companies: BellSouth Mobility, Intercell,
and Cellular One.
Irderiocal Coordination
According to local officials in Broward County, Florida, the
most successful strategies to deal with tower and antenna
sitings have been developed among neighboring local
governments. Those strategies recognize the wisdom of
working interlocally to provide a degree of uniformity in tower
ordinances in a given region: from planning, legal, and
financial perspectives, it simply makes good sense. In Broward
jCounm the issue of tower and antenna sitings has evoked a
- -"variety of responses. Those responses include the passage of
temporary ordinances and full and partial moratoria on sitings.
16
_. _.... _..... -.tit
The most successful strategies to deal with
tower and antenna sitings have been developed.
among neighboring local goverrtinents.
To ensure a coordinated approach in dealing with permit
requests for tower sitings, the Broward County cities of
Coconut Creek, Coral Springs, Davie, Miramar, and Pembroke
Pines entered into an interlocal agreement to share the services
of an attorney consultant who works with the cities to prepare
telecommunications ordinances to regulate tower sitings.
However, the cities' leaders do not anticipate that one model
ordinance can cover all the different situations in their
communities. As a result, each has committed to work
together to provide significant input into the various needs
assessments that will be undertaken. According to the city
manager in Coconut Creek, "the important thing is that we
need to share whatever expertise we have and work together."
Industry- Sponsored Meetings
Industry will gain little by locating in a community amidst
citizen opposition. In order to facilitate community
involvement in decision - making over permits and other
industry requests, local governments may consider recom-
mending to industry representatives that they hold public
meetings regarding their proposals. Local governments may
also consider offering municipal facilities for such meetings.
In October 1996, Sugar Creek, Missouri adopted a temporary
moratorium on tower sitings in order to review a possible
telecommunications ordinance. To gamer community support
for the proposed siting during the moratorium, Sprint Spectrum
organized a meeting at a municipal building and invited
residents to air their views about the proposal. Twenty-five
residents attended the meeting and expressed concerns over
the potential impact of the siting on properry values, inter.
ference with satellite television, and public health. The
meeting gave Sprint the opportunity to get a better under-
standing of citizen perspectives, answer residents questions,
and give them certain assurances regarding the impact of
Sprint's proposed actions.
l'
CONSENSUS BUILDING: GOVERNMENT, CITIZEN, AND INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
Community Education
Local governments should consider developing educational
resources about tower and antenna sitings for use by citizens
and local govemment staff. These resources may be printed or
put on a local government home page with other information
concerning the locality's management of telecommunications
infastrucrure.
In November 1996, Greensboro, North Carolina issued a six
page "tutorial," "Monopoles, Radio Towers and Land Use ", for
residents and staff that details the city's involvement in the
placement of towers and antennas within the city. The tutorial
gives background on trends in service demands in the city over
the last few years and provides detailed answers to commonly
asked questions through a written question and answer format.
Local governments should consider
developing educational resources about tower `,'',
and antenna sitings far use by citizens and
t local government staff xq.J
The tutorial poses and answers the following questions:
• What is the telecommunications industry?
• Which companies offer telecommunications technology to
our community?
• Why can't the carriers use existing infrastructure for
transmitting needs?
• What do wireless radio communication transmitting
structures look like?
• How many radio communications structures will have to
be built?
• Can a locality regulate where these structures are built,
and does Greensboro have any such regulations?
• Can carriers share the same radio communication
structures?
• Do radio communication structures transmit any harmful
radio waves?
• Are they safe for our community? Can these structures fall?
The tutorial concludes with a description of the ways in which
Greensboro has worked to facilitate relations with industry.
17
, ) .ry 3
Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
ScIt- ;uppordnc .taker.
l8
t h1%1 "1 NAVVC
•_
A SEVEN STEP TELECOMMUNICATIONS
STRATEGY CHECKLIST
One of the most effective ways to address the changes occurring
in your cotmnunity as a result of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 is to develop a strategy checklist for responding to
technology and telecommunications issues.
Why a checklist? Because one of the worst things a community
can do is respond on an ad hoc basis to the individual requests
for variances, ideas for partnerships, and zoning applications
coming from wireless providers who want to do business in the
community.
Instead, consider developing a coherent, strategic approach for
dealing with the issue of tower citing that considers the unique
needs and concerns of your locality. Following the seven steps
here should help prepare your community to successfully
address a wide array of rower siting issues.
Step 1. Educate yourself.
Use the new technology of the Internet and visit the home
Pages of industry associations, the FCC, and your own associa-
tions at the state and local level. These home pages will permit
you to see how the information critical to understanding events,
as well as people's reactions to them, is currently disseminated to
different audiences ( including those who may have an opinion
different than your own.)
Step 2. Develop your strengnm
Local governments have certain rights and powers that are
under attack by legislative and-legal actions at the state or
national levels. It is important to know what those rights are
and make sure that they are properly reflected in today's
technology -rich environment. A zoning ordinance or
franchise agreement written decades ago may still have validity
and could even be strengthened through smart legislative
action. Spend some time researching the current status of your
zoning and rights -of -way ordinances, and remind yourself of
your rights and privileges.
Step 3. Develop an appreciation for the larger
issue of bandwidth management.
Cellular and PCS transmissions are only part of the "spectrum"
through which we can transfer data streams. Local elected and
appointed officials should develop a thorough understanding of
all spectrum aspects — from public safety and walkie- talkie
bands to cable TV signals — and consider them as one big
information superhighway that must be coordinated and made
to work efficiently for the taxpayer.
Resources to help in getting up to speed: local colleges and
universities that sponsor training sessions for public employees;
state and federal agency training programs open to local officials;
expert consultants; and your own local staff. The benefits from a
learning effort will be visible almost immediately.
Step 4. Staff up and centralize responsibilities.
Tower siting is complex. Your jurisdiction will benefit from two
simple management steps: 1) the creation and/or strengthening
of a project team, task force, or committee that properly reflects
the various public sector stake - holders, and 2) the selection of a
jurisdiction -wide coordinator to manage all applications from
and negotiations with the telecommunications industry.
By developing a team approach, your community will benefit
from the experiences of others. In addition, the creation of a
19
l Siting Cellular Towers: What You Need to Know, What You Need to Do
"team" or "task force" to serve as the single point of reference
will also help solve industry complaints about local
government's inability to provide a "one- stop- shopping"
approach to the application process. A team approach also
provides an infrastructure management perspective that cuts
across all technologies and tries to maximize taxpayer return on
the jurisdiction's infrastructure investment and assets.
Step 5. Plan a strategy for community
involvement.
Most citizens will not focus on the complexities of tower siting
until it becomes a crisis — that is, until a tower siting
application impacts their own neighborhood or a tower site is
approved for their backyard. For this reason, it is critical to
develop a comprehensive, community-wide communications
strategy that clearly delineates what is known, what is feared,
and what can be gained from community involvement in this
issue. Being proactive by helping your constituents understand
the tower siting issue and sharing examples of leadership with
other communities is an excellent way to avert disaster later on
-� down the line.
1
Step 6. Consider ways to generate revenues
and improve government services.
As cyberspace commerce increases, some futurists predict an
erosion or virtual elimination of sales tax revenues to localities.
In addition, it is becoming increasingly difficult to collect
revenues from cable, telephone, and other franchise holders.
Strategic siting of antennas or towers in your community may
produce revenue streams and increase economic development
activity at a time when they are most urgently needed.
Institutional Networks (I- Nets), Public, Educational and
Governmental (PEG) channels, high speed data/phones, e-mail,
access to the world wide web, and payment transfers are just
some of the government service improvements raking place in
communities across the country as a result of successful local
government negotiations with the telecommunications industry.
Seeing the opportunity to significantly improve community
service delivery using PCS and other new telecommunications
technologies is a negotiating objective that can reduce ongoing
costs and improve service delivery to citizens.
20
Step 7. Work.with other communities and
industry.
Consider forming task forces or working groups with other
localities in your metropolitan region This approach will
enable you to learn from the siting experiences of other
communities — to emulate their successes and avoid their
conflicts. Consider reaching out to industry and community
groups as well. City and county leaders who are strategic will
create alliances by reaching out to these other interests to
advance consensus on a joint strategy that benefits the locality.
Then, working together, such an alliance can implement a
joint strategy.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURG
7:00 A,M@
1. Pledge to the Flag
2.. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
4. New Business:
Comprehensive Plan Modification
5. Old Business:
Dale Snowder/MEDCO proposal
6. Update on Projects
7. Committee Reports
8. Mayor's Business
9. Approval of Bills
10. Adjourn
ITISASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMESAREACCURATE, IFNOT
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULEASACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
4
Ttest Proposal
On behalf of the City of Rexburg, this proposal is set forth for discussion purposes only,
and would understandably require some refinement and supplementation prior to being adequate
for finalizing any agreements. To that end, the following issues are presented.
Title to the entire parcel (approximately 4.6 acres) would be transferred to Ttest or
its parent corporation, having four phases of development delineated, and with
liens back to the benefit of the City conditioned on future events occurring relative
to the 4 phases.
a. Within one year of the transfer, Ttest would have to be under construction
for the first phase in order to maintain title to not only the Pt phase portion
of the property, but to all phases.
b. Within four years of the original transfer to Ttest, phase two would have to
be underway in order to maintain title to phase 4. If no action has been
undertaken to expand into phase two, all property associated with phase 4
would revert back to the City.
C. Within seven years of the original transfer to Ttest, the next applicable
phase would have to be under construction, or all property associated wtih
the highest remaining phase would again revert back to the City.
d. Within ten years of the original transfer to Ttest, the final remaining phase
has not been started, title to all property associated with un- developed
property transferred originally, shall revert back to the City.
2. All utilities provided by the City of Rexburg to their customer base, such as water,
sewer, and storm drainage shall be brought to a point adjacent to the subject
property, with all front foot fees and hookup fees being waived. All other use
fees and rates would be as currently set forth, or as may from time to time be
amended for all customers of similar nature within the City.
3. Development of the roadway known as Profit Street could be postponed until such
time as phase 2 of the development was undertaken, at which time, Ttest would be
responsible for extending Profit Street from its current location to a point where it
would connect with the projected or existing Dividend Drive.
4. There would be no waiver of current zoning regulations and applicable covenants
associated with the location under discussion.
REVISED
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURC
1. Pledge to the Flag
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
4. New Business:
Preliminary Plat Approval - LDS Property - North 2'd East - John Watson
Final Acceptance of Evergreen Subdivision - Stephen Zollinger
Beer License Approvals
7:40 Public Hearing -
Annexation of property on 5th West/7th South
7:50 Public Hearing -
Steve Oakey, Zone Change, 50 -60 So. 1� West
6. Update on Projects
7. Committee Reports
Animal Control Committee Report
8. Mayor's Business
9. Approval of Bills
10. Adjourn
IT IS ASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMES ARE ACCURATE, IF NOT
THECOUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULEASACCURATELYASPOSSIBLE.
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
�� BEER LICENSE APPROVALS
Maverick Country Store
75 N. 2nd East
Maverick Country Store
12S.2 nd West
Teton Lanes
585 N. 2nd East
** *Gas `n Goodies
565 No. 200 East
* ** This license is being approved for the balance of 2000 since they just opened.
Approve it also for 2001 contingent upon the receipt of the State and County 2001
licenses.
-� ORDINANCE NO. 581
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING;FOR THE LICEN
PROHIBITING DOGS FROM RUNNING AT LAIF,
THE PEACE; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOUND]
DOGS AND DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE; PRO`
IMPOUNDMENT DUTIES QF, POLICEMEN ANI
NOTICE OF IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTTI
CITATION OF DOG OWNER RATHER THAN 'V
G OF DOGS;
AND DISTURBING
+1T OF UNLICENSED
OF DOG;
PROVIDING FOR NON-COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSES-YRUVLUINU
FOR DISPOSITION OF DOGS WITH RABIES; PROVIDING; FOR
DESTRUCTION OF DOGS; MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO INTERFERE
WITH SEIZURE OR DESTRUCTION OF DOGS; PROHIBITING CRUEL
TREATMENT OF DOGS; DEFINING OWNER OF DOG; PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE;
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO 411, CHAPTER 35 OF THE REVISED
ORDINANCES AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES OR PORTIONS
THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
Recommended Change: This pretext will be changed to reflect the changes in
the ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO:
SECTION I: LICENSING OF DOGS. It shall be unlawful for any person of
persons to own, keep or harbor, any dog, male or female over 3 months oiage within the
City of Rexburg without obtaining a license therefor as hereinafter provided.
Recommended Change: It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to own, keep or
harbor, any dog, male or female over 3 months of age within the City of Rexburg without
obtaining a license' rt-&r as hereinafteFprevided. The fine for not having a Acense for
a dog will be $50.00 for the first offense,$100.00 for the second offense and $200.00 for
each subsequent offense.
1 of 15
ii
1
SECTION II: AMOUNT OF LICENSE. The amount to be paid by each
applicant obtaining such license for keeping each male dog and saaLed female dog shall
be $3.00 per year, and for the keeping of each unspayed female dog $5.00 per year. All
licenses shall expire on the first day of January of each year: No license shall be issued
for less than one year unless the dog was brought into the City after the first day of
January, in which case the cost of obtaining such license shall be proportionate to the cost
of the yearly license; provided that no license shall be issued for less than three months.
Recommended Change: Licenses will be provided free of charge for all dogs residing
within the City of Rexburg. These licenses shall be valid for the life of the animal on
condition that the owner provides appropriate change of address forms or change of
ownership forms to the Police department. Failure to provide change of address or
ownership notification to the Police department within 30 days of such change will be
punishable by a fine of $50.00.
SECTION III: ISSUANCE OF LICENSE. The owner, person or persons having
in charge any dog, male or female, within the City of Rexburg, shall pay to the City Clerk
the cost of obtaining such license as is provided for in this ordinance, and it shall
thereupon be the duty of the Clerk to issue a license to said person bearing the same
number as the number to be worn on the collar of the dog, as hereinafter provided. The
said license shall give the date of issue, the term for which issued, the date of its
expiration, the amount paid, the name of the person to who issued, the name and sex of
the dog and the number of the license. The Clerk shall furnish with each license a metal
2of15
- tag which shall be stamped with the number corresponding to the number of the license
and the year of its expiration. The clerk shall keep a record of the license issued.
Recommended Change: The Police department or its representative shall issue a license
to the dog owner and shall maintain the following information regarding the license: the
date of issue, the name and address and phone number of the owner, the name, age and
sex of the dog; a description of the dog and the number of the license. The Police
department shall furnish with each license a metal tag which shall be stamped with the
number corresponding to the number of the license.
SECTION IV. METAL TAG ATTACHED. The metal tag, as described in
Section III of the Ordinance, shall be attached to a collar which the owner or person in
charge of the dog shall provide, and which shall be placed and kept upon the neck of such
dog.
Recommended Change: The metal tag, as described in Section III of the Ordinance,
shall be attached to a collar and the collar kept on the neck of the dog. Failure to keep
proper identification on the dog will be punishable by a fine of $50.00.
SECTION V. UNLICENSED DOGS - IMPOUNDMENT. All dogs not licensed
and collared, as provided in Sections I, II, and III above, are declared to be a public
nuisance, and it is the duty of all policemen and the poundmaster to take up and impound
any dog not so licensed and collared.
3of15
Recommended Change: Change: policemen to police officers. Add: The fine for not
having appropriate license will be $50.00 for the first offense, $100.00 for the second
offense, and $200.00 for each subsequent offense.
SECTION VI. DISTURBING THE PEACE UNLAWFUL. It is unlawful for any
person to own, keep or harbor within the limits of the City, where tethered, caged or
otherwise, any dog which by barking howling, yelping, whimpering or whining, or by the
making of other noises, disturbs the quiet of any neighborhood or person.
Recommended Change: Add: Disturbing the peace determination will be made by a
law enforcement officer after an investigation of said complaint. Violation of this section
of the Ordinance will punishable by a fine of $50.00 for the first offense, $100.00 for the
second offense, and $200.00 for the third offense. e i rc s o
fo th o f , th r n o d e lai wi 5
SECTION VII. RUNNING LARGE -UNLAWFUL WHEN. (LEASH LAW).
Except as provided by Section VIII hereof, it is unlawful for any person to cause, permit
or allow any dog, whether licensed or not, owned, harbored, controlled or kept by him,
within the city limits, to roam, run or stray away from the premises of the owner, and to
be or remain upon the streets or alleys of the city, or on any public place in the city or
upon any other premises without the consent of the person in possession of such
premises, unless:
4of15
A. Such dog be in the charge of the owner or some duly authorized and
competent person and controlled by a leash or chain not exceeding ten feet in
length.
B. Such dog is safely and securely confined or completely controlled while in or
upon any motor vehicle.
Recommended Change: Change as follows for better readability.
Except as provided by Section VIII heree €, it is unlawful for any person to cause, permit
or allow any dog, whether licensed or not, ewned, harbored, ee"trelle 0 or kept by him,
within the eity li tits; to roam, run or stray away from the premises of the owner, and to
be or remain upen the streets or- alleys of the eity, or- en any publ: I
premises, unless:
A. Such dog be in the charge of the owner or some duly authorized and
competent person and while controlled by a leash or chain not exceeding ten feet
in length.
B. Such dog is safely and securely confined or completely controlled while in or
upon any motor vehicle.
C. Such dog is on any other premises with the consent of the person in possession
of such premises.
Failure to keep the dog under control will be punishable by a fine of $50.00 for the first
offense, $100.00 for the second offense, and $200.00 for the third offense.
5of15
" > SECTION VIII. RUNNING AT LARGE -EXCEPTION. The City Council may
designate such areas of a public park or other rules and regulations as may be prescribed
for the use of such areas, for the training or exercise of dogs, or holding dog shows or
exhibitions. Dogs within such areas so designated need not be controlled by leash or
chain but shall be under the control of a responsible person and controlled by whistle,
voice or other effective command.
Recommended Change: The City Council may designate sxeh areas of a public park -ef
other ....,e.. and . ,.tdatiens as y be prescribed for the use ,.o..ueh areas., or other city
owned land for the training or exercise of dogs, or holding dog shows or exhibitions.
Dogs within such areas se designated need not be controlled by leash or chain, but shall
be under the control of a responsible person and controlled by whistle, voice or other
effective command. Failure to comply with this section will be punishable by a fine of
$50.00.
SECTION IX. IMPOUNDMENT DUTIES OF POLICEMEN AND
POUNDMASTER. It shall be the duty of all policemen and the poundmaster to seize and
impound any dog found to be running at large as provided in Section VII as set forth
above.
Recommended Change: It shall be the duty of all pelieemen police officers and the
poundmaster to seize and impound any dog found to be running at large as provided in
6of15
/ SECTION X. NOTICE OF IMPOUNDED AND REDEMPTION OF
LICENSED DOGS. The owner of every licensed dog so seized and impounded shall be
notified by the police department in writing of the seizure and impoundment within 48
hours thereafter. Notice shall be sufficient when it identifies the dog by license number
states the date and the place of seizure, is placed in a sealed envelope addressed to the
owner of the dog at his residence as appears on the application for the current license, and
is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
Every licensed dog so seized shall be retained in the pound for a period of five
days after notice is mailed to the owner of the dog. At any time while the dog is so
impounded, the owner or keeper of the dog may redeem the same by paying to the
poundmaster the sum of $5.00 for every twenty -four hours that the dog has been held in
the pound, which shall be paid over to the City Clerk to be deposited in the general fund.
This will not relieve the owner from appearing in the Magistrate's Division of the
District Court for Madison County to answer any charges that may be filed against him
for violating any provision of this ordinance.
Recommended Change:. The owner of every licensed dog se seized and impounded
shall be notified by the police department telephonically within 24 hours of seizure or in
writing within 48 hours thereafter. Telephonic notice
shall be sufficient when the police officer speaks directly with the owner or written notice
shall be sufficient when it identifies the dog by license number, states the date and the
place of seizure, is placed in a sealed envelope addressed to the owner of the dog at his
residence as appears on the application for the eurrent license, and is deposited in the
United States mail, postage prepaid.
7of15
Every licensed dog so seized shall be retained in the pound for a period of five
days after notice is made telephonically or mailed to the owner of the dog. At any time
while the dog is so impounded, the owner or keeper of the dog may redeem the sane the
dog by paying to thepeandmaster the sum of $5.00 for every twenty -four hours that the
dog has been held in the pound, which shall be paid ever to the City Clerk to be depe °a
in the general This will not relieve the owner from appearing in the Magistrate's
Division of the District Court for Madison County to answer any charges that may be
filed against him for violating any provision of this ordinance. Failure to redeem the dog
will subject the owner to a penalty of $100.00.
SECTION XI. IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION OF UNLICENSED
DOGS. All dogs seized and impounded which do not have a collar and license as
provided in Sections I, H and III hereof, and whose ownership is unknown to the police
department or the poundmaster, shall be retained in the pound for a period of 72 hours,
during which time the dog may be released upon the payment of the pound fee of $5_00
per day and purchasing a license. This will not relieve the owner from appearing in the
Magistrate's Division of the District Court for Madison County to answer any charges
that may be filed against him for violating any provision of this Ordinance.
Recommended Chance: All dogs seized and impounded whieh that do not have a collar
and license as provided in Sections I,11 and III hereof, and whose ownership is unknown
to the police department or the poundmaster, shall be retained in the pound for a period of
72 hours, during which time the dog may be released upen on the payment of the pound
fee of $5.00 per day and ^�•f� obtaining a license. This will not relieve the owner
8of15
from appearing in the Magistrate's Division of the District Court for Madison County to
answer any charges that may be filed against him for violating any provision of this
Ordinance.. Failure to redeem the dog will subject the owner to a penalty of $100.00.
SECTION MI. CITATION — IN LIEU OF PvIPOUNDMENT. In lieu of seizing
and impounding any dog found to be running at large in violation of Section VII (the
Leash Law), the policeman or poundmaster may, if the owner of the dog is known, issue
a citation that shall meet the following requirements: Must have consecutive serial
numbers, space to provide date, time and location of offense, name and address of the
owner, and the offense by brief description.
Recommended Change: Change policeman to police officer
SECTION XIII. CITATION — ISSUANCE. The citation shall be issued by the
policeman or the poundmaster by handing a copy of the original to the owner, or by
mailing him a copy as provided by Section IX. If the owner does not appear before the
Magistrate with the citation within five days after he has been notified of the offense, the
policeman or the poundmaster having knowledge of the offense and who issued the
citation, shall have prepared a formal complaint which he will verify, charging the owner
with the offense, including whether it be a first, second, third or subsequent offense, and
present the same to the court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Recommended Change: The citation shall be issued by the policeman police officer or
the poundmaster by handing a copy of the original to the owner, or by mailing him a copy
as provided by Section IX. If the owner does not appear before the Magistrate with the
9of15
i citation within five days after he has been notified of the offense, the pelieem police
officer or the poundmaster h •Ang knowledge of the e ff ase and who issued the citation,
shall have prepares prepare a formal complaint vvWeh he • All verify, charging the owner
with the offense, including whether it be a first, second, third or subsequent offense, and
present the same to the court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
SECTION XIV. NONCOMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE — REQUIRED —
APPLICATION. It is unlawful to keep, maintain, harbor or possess upon the premises or
any household more than two dogs, unless the owner or person in charge thereof shall
have obtained a noncommercial kennel license. Application for a noncommercial kennel
license shall be made to the city clerk and must be accompanied by the written consent to
such noncommercial kennel by at least seventy -five percent of all the persons in
possession of premises within one hundred feet, measured on street lines, of the premises
upon which said noncommercial kennel is to be maintained, and accompanied by the
deposit of a license fee of five dollars for three dogs. And an additional one dollar for
each dog over three, which deposit shall be returned to the applicant if the license is not
finally issued.
Recommended Change: Delete in entirety. There is already a disturbing the peace
clause and evidently the city has health ordinances which will satisfy this case rather than
making more work for the Police department.
SECTION XV. NONCOMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE — APPLICATION —
CONTENTS. The application shall state the name and address of the owner, where the
10 of 15
/" ') noncommercial kennel is to be kept and the number of dogs. The application shall be in
duplicate and the duplicate thereof shall be referred to the city council, and a designated
committee shall, within ten days thereof, make its report of whether or not the location
and operation of said kennel complies with the health ordinances of the city, and if such a
report is unfavorable, no licenses shall be issued.
Recommended Change: Delete
SECTION XVI. NONCOMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE —
NONTRANSFERABLE. Noncommercial kennel licenses shall not be transferable, and
shall expire the 31'` day of December of the year in which issued. Whenever additions
are made to the number of dogs for which a kennel license has been issued, the licensee
shall, within three days, report to the City Clerk and pay the required license fee;
provided, however, that whatever puppies are born the issue of a dog theretofore counted
in putting the license fee, such puppies shall not be counted as additions until three
months old.
Recommended Chance: Delete.
SECTION XVII. INDIVIDUAL LICENSE REQUIRED. The issuance of a
noncommercial kennel license shall not obviate the necessity of obtaining an individual
dog license, nor shall any of the provisions of this Ordinance be deemed to vary or alter
any of the zoning ordinances of the city.
Recommended Chance: Delete
11 of 15
i
SECTION XVIII. RABIES — QUARANTINE. The poundmaster shall have
authority to order the owner of any dog showing symptoms of rabies or of any dog which
has bitten any person, so as to cause an abrasion of the skin, to subject such dog to the
city pound for quarantine for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, and if such dog shall
be determined free of rabies the same shall be returned to the owner upon payment of
one -half of the regular fee for keeping dogs impounded. No other fee shall be charged.
If such fee is not paid, the dog will be subject to disposal as provided in Sections X and
XX hereof, provided, however, that in lieu of submitting such dog to the pound, the
owner may, at his expense, admit such dog to a veterinarian for examination.
Recommended Chanee: The poundmaster shall have authority to order the owner of any
dog showing symptoms of rabies or of any dog which has bitten any person,— se-as-te
skin, eause an abrasion of the to subject sueh the dog to the city pound for quarantine for
a period of not to exceed fifteen days, and imoo h dog. If the dog shall be is determined
to be free of rabies, the sane it shall be returned to the owner upon after payment of one-
half of the regular fee for keeping dogs impounded. No other fee shall be charged. If
sueh fee is not paid, the deg will be subjeet te dispesal as pfavided in Seetiens X and
heree However, if the animal is not redeemed and fees are not paid, the owner will be
subject to a fine of $100.00. In lieu of submitting a dog to the
pound for quarantine, the owner may, at his expense, admit sueh the dog to a veterinarian
for examination.
SECTION XIX. RABIES — DESTRUCTION. Any dog afflicted with rabies
shall be disposed of immediately, either by the owner or poundmaster.
12 of 15
Recommended Change: None.
SECTION XX. DESTRUCTION OF DOGS. Dogs that have been impounded
and not redeemed as above provided are to be destroyed by the poundmaster in a humane
manner and the carcass disposed of in a lawful manner.
Recommended Change: Dogs that have been impounded and not redeemed- a&ebeve
provided afe to will be destroyed dispositioned by the poundmaster in a humane manner
The owner of unclaimed animals will be
subject to a fine of $100.00.
SECTION XXI. UNLAWFUL TO INTERFERE WITH THE SEIZURE OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOGS. It is unlawful for any person to hinder, molest, or interfere
with any person who is lawfully engaged in seizing, impounding, or destroying any dog,
or removing the carcass as provided in this Ordinance.
Recommended Change: None
SECTION XXII. CRUELTY PROHIBITED. It is unlawful for any person to
maltreat or torture any dog, or having the right or authority to kill any dog, to kill such
dog in an inhumane manner.
Recommended Change: It is unlawful for any person to maltreat or torture any deg
animal, or having the right or authority to kill any deg animal, to kill sueh dog the animal
in an inhumane manner.
13 of 15
SECTION XXHI. DEFINITION. The term owner as used in this ordinance shall
be construed to mean and include any person, persons, association, business entity, or
corporation owning, harboring or keeping a dog or dogs within the corporate limits of the
City of Rexburg, Idaho. The term dog as used in this ordinance shall mean and include
either male or female.
Recommended Chance: The term owner as used in this ordinance shall be construed to
mean and include any person, persons, association, business entity, or corporation
owning, harboring or keeping a dog or dogs within the corporate limits of the City of
Rexburg, Idahe The ♦eFm dog as used in this e...linanee ..hall fnean and include eu -c ith
SECTION XXIV. VIOLATIONS - PENALTIES. Any person or persons
violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as follows:
For violation of Section I (dogs to be licensed) by a fine of $15.00;
For violation of Section VI (disturbing the peace) by a fine of not over $100.00;
For violation of Section VII (leash law) by a fine of $15.00 for the first offense,
$20.00 for the second offense, $30.00 for the third offense, and not exceeding $100.00
upon all subsequent offenses, all involving the same dog;
For violation of Sections XIV through XVII (kennels) by a fine of not over
$100.00
For violation of any other section of this Ordinance by a fine of not over $100.00.
In addition thereto, all found guilty will be assessed costs.
14 of 15
Recommended Change: Any persons or persons violating the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as indicated in each
section. In addition, all found guilty will be assessed costs.
SECTION XXV. REPEALING ORDINANCES. Ordinance No. 411, Chapter 35
of Revised Ordinances, and all ordinances or portions of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed. Recommended Change: Change as required.
SECTION XXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication.
Recommended Change: Change as required.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, and APPROVED by
the Mayor this 20s' day of July, 1977. Recommended Change: Change as required.
SECTIONS to be Added to the Ordinance.
1. It shall be unlawful to give away animals at any place of business or on city land
within the city limits without first obtaining a permit from the Police department. The
fine for this offense will be $200.00.
2. It shall be unlawful to abandon animals within the city limits or to abandon city
animals in the surrounding country. The fine for this offense will be $500.00.
15 of 15
O
O
AVOID SLIP -UPS WITH
MAGNESIUM CHLORIDE
ICE -STO
Reilly Indust
Brine Pr
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBUR
DECEMMR, 20, 2000- 7:00 P.M.
1. Pledge to the Flag
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
4. New Business:
7:05 p.m. - Public Hearing - ECIPDA
Rexburg/ARTCO Economic Development Project
• Approval of Beer Licenses
• 2' Reading Ordinance No.
Animal Control
• Pat Burton - 416 W. Main
Snow Removal in driveway
• Fred Calder - 244 Steiner
Snow removal damage to streets
• Corey Barnard - Upper Valley Free Clinic
Request for Donation
• Wastewater Rate Adjustment - Sugar City /Teton
5. Update on Projects
6. Committee Reports
• Personnel Committee and Richard
7. Mayor's Business
8. Approval of Bills
9. Adjourn
IT IS ASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMES ARE ACCURATE, IF NOT,
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULE ASACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
# ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
i
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF REXBURG
DECEMBER 20, 2000- 7:00 P.M.
1. Pledge to the Flag
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Non Controversial Items Added to the Agenda
4. New Business:
7:05 p.m. - Public Hearing - ECIPDA
Rexburg/ARTCO Economic Development Project
• Approval of Beer Licenses
• 2nd Reading Ordinance No.
Animal Control
• Pat Burton - 416 W. Main
Snow Removal in driveway
• Fred Calder - 244 Steiner
Snow removal damage to streets
• Corey Barnard - Upper Valley Free Clinic
Request for Donation
• Wastewater Rate Adjustment - Sugar City/Teton
5. Update on Projects
6. Committee Reports
• Personnel Committee and Richard
7. Mayor's Business
8. Approval of Bills
9. Adjourn
IT IS ASSUMED THESE SCHEDULED TIMES ARE ACCURATE, IF NOT
THE COUNCIL WILL ADJUST THE SCHEDULEASACCURATELYAS POSSIBLE.
* ** Please contact City Hall three days prior to any city meeting if there is any special assistance
needed for disabled people planning to attend the meeting.
.......................................................... ......................... .-------------------- -
Notice of Public Hearing
�) on the Status of Funded Activities
The City of Rexburg received an Idaho Community Development Block Grant in the amount
of $500,000. These funds are currently being used for the improvements of road and
infrastructure for the purpose of and Economic Development project with Artco, Inc. and the
City of Rexburg.
The hearing will include a review of project activities and accomplishments to date; a
summary of all expenditures to date; a general description of remaining work; and a general
description of any changes made to the ICDBG scope of work, budget, schedule, location, or
beneficiaries.
The hearing has been scheduled for December 20,2000, 7:05 p.m., at the Rexburg, City Hall.
Project information will be available for review. Verbal and written comments will be
accepted until five 24 -hour days after the public hearing.
The hearing will be held in a facility that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Information
provided at the public hearing will be available upon request, five days prior to the hearing, in
a format that is useable to persons with disabilities. For more information, contact Rick Miller
by calling (208)356 -4524.
UPPER VALLEY FREE CLINIC, INC.'
PRESENTATION TO REXBURG CITY COUNCIL
20 DECEMBER, 2000
AGENDA
1. BACKROUND ON UPPER VALLEY FREE CLINIC
II. MISSION, VALUE STATEMENTS
III. BUDGET FOR 2001
IV. REQUEST FOR $1000.00 FROM REXBURG CITY COUNCIL
V. OTHER ISSUES
Presented by Corey D. Barnard, President, Upper Valley Free Clinic, Inc.
i
UPPER VALLEY FREE CLINIC, INC.
VALUE STATEMENT
It is the intention of the Upper Valley Free Clinic (the CLINIC) to help those who are
making a sincere effort to help themselves and their families. As a private non - profit
corporation, the CLINIC will serve as a community based organization which identifies
health care needs of the underserved populations in the Upper Snake River Valley;
develops resources and quality programs to meet those needs, and provides the services
free of charge and free of judgement in a caring and loving environment. The CLINIC
will act as a referral source for those clients who do not qualify for free services or for
those who may require care outside the scope of services offered by the CLINIC.
V
YEAR
RECEIPTS:
Donations:
Grants
Donations
In -Kind
Personal Services
Materials
TOTAL RECEIPTS
EXPENDITURES:
- Personal Services
Medical Supplies/Pharmaceuticals
Office Expense:
Flyers, Advertising, Etc.
Supplies
Filing Fees for 501(c)(3)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
SURPLUS /(DEFICIT) FOR PERIOD
UPPER VALLEY FREE CLINIC, INC.
Rexburg, Idaho
Projected Budget - Receipts and Expenditures
For the Period 1/01/2001 through 12/31/2001
DONATIONS
SERVICES OTHER ITEMS CASH COMBINED
$ $ $ 2,500 $ 2,500
3,000 3,000
21,216 - 21,216
12,000 - 12,000
21,216 12,000 5,500 38,716
21,216 - - 21,216
- 10,000 2,000 12,000
1,000 2,500 3,500
1,000 200 1,200
- 500 500
21,216 12,000 5,200 38,416
$ - $ - $ 300 $ 300
t_nCK Here„ _-� -
-COi
Find TI
Click Here Perfect G
Her
r
MAMIM L health a ®® ® ®
CNN Sites M Editions I myCNN I Video I Audio I Headline News Brief I Free E -mail I Feedback '
MAINPAGE
. n -.. IXi:l�'ID COtft
WORLD
Health care group to fund study on effects of
WE
lack of health insurance
WE ATHER
,
BUSINESS
- BUSINESS
SPORTS
December 18,12000
Web posted•a� 10'32 AM EST _(1 532 GMT)
'?• j
TECHNOLOGY
SPACE
TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- The
#�
HEALTH
!7 nation's largest health care foundation
.. '`
• AIDS
is funding a three -year research project
• aging
to determine the health and economic
• alternative
consequences of not having access to
I cancer
health care.
E children
.
It diet &fitness
Approximately 43 million people in
�
® men
the United States —about one in six --
—
women
lack health_insurant,Pr, -The study will attempt to measure the impact that has
on individuals, families and communities.
- - -� ENTERTAINMENT
POLITICS
s ,
WA—d
LAW
The Robert Joh�'son Foundation awarded a $3.7 million grant for the
project to the`Institute of Medicine last week.
CAREER
TRAVEL
- - _+.�
"What the Institute oif Medicine can do is to assemble all the different
FOOD
pieces
of this puzzle and make t chafer," Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, president of the
_,-ARTS as STYLE-
$8.3 billion foundation: "Nobody's really done that." -
BOOKS-
— -
NATURE
The institute, which works to improve, health through is
IN -DEPTH
public research, part
of the National Academy of Sciences, a private advisory chartered by
ANALYSIS
group
Congress.
LOCAL
Among the questions likely to be examined are what care the uninsured
EDITIONS:
receive, who pays for those services, and how public health and productivity
CNN com Europe
are affected by the uninsured.
.. change default edition
MULTIMEDIA:
video
- video archive
audio
CNN Site
Search
CNNC
HEALTH
TOP STORI
Health care
study on eff
health insur
Gene mutat
doubles life
CDC. Four li
linked to rec
products
Anti- depress
Flashes from
chemothera
CDC says 6
adults overw
Observing b
could help r
(MORE)
M r7;n�
•• E
Bush visits
Mideast lea
Pe:_ce talks
on
Schroeder and other physicians believe lack of insurance can trigger or Russian pre
worsen Health problems. Yet a public opinion:surv�y last year found 53 harness Ca
percent of respondents felt the uninsured get sufficient health care, Schroeder domination
said.
Gillette to c
percent
"We hope that the conventional wisdom will change" and policy makers will (MORE)
http://www.cnn.com/2000/1-IEALTHII 2/ 18/ uninsured .consequences.ap /index.html 12/18/00
multimedia showcase
news quiz
more services
... 1a � grUr,N iv 1UHU stuuy on effects of tacK of neaun insurance .. rage 2 of 3
take steps to get people health coverage,-hr.-said.,
The institute's study committee will review all the research on the issue and
decide whether more research is needed.
E -MAIL: Dr. Richard F. Corlin, president -elect of the American Medical Association,
Subscribe to one of our said uninsured people often seek care in emergency rooms, where it is most
news . e-mail lists.
expensive, and rarely get screening tests, so dangerous conditions such as
Enter your address: diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer go undiagnosed for years.
DISCUSSION:
messageboards
chat
feedback
CNN WEB SITES:
MY0111dcorrl CM31
anpolII6cs
CHNfyiLcom
CNN.com Europe
Asiallow
Spanish
Portuguese
German
Italian
`— Swedish
Norwegian
Danish
Japanese
Chinese Headlines
` TIME INC. SITES:
Go To ...
CNN NETWORKS:
INTERNKnONAL
1ia3irl
QWRAM
AIRPORT
NETWORK
CNN anchors
transcripts
Turner distribution
SITE INFO
help
contents
search
ad info
jobs
WEB SERVICES:
The foundation, created by Johnson & Johnson heir Robert Wood Johnson
and located near Princeton, was transformed from a local charity into a
national philanthropy in 1972.
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RELATED STORIES:
Effort under way to let states keep unspent funds for uninsured
children
September 30, 2000
Health insurance costs continue to climb
September 7, 2000
Low-income-families lose health insurance moving from welfare to
work_, reportortsay
June 19, 2000"'
Who are the uninsured?
October 4', 199*
BUSINESS
Wall St. up
Aetna cuttin
Prudential t
(MORE)
MARKETS
DJIA r 1
NAS t 2
S &P 4 1
SPORTS
Colts hold of
stay in posts
Giants rally t
win NEC Ea
Owens sets
Rice's home
(MORE)
'3� All Score
WEATHER
RELATED SITES.
Institute of Medicine
Robert Wood_ Johnson Foundation
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Note: Pages will open,in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
Search CNN.com
Enter your
Click hereT
world cities
WORLD
--- -- - - - - -- Israeliparlla
vote affecfin
U.S.
School in se
--. ._ -
College _ vote
_POLITICS
Bush visits
LAW
U.S. Supre
docket of hi
TECHNOL
Cyberattack
on the rise
ENTERTAI
http:/ /www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12 /18/ uninsured .consequences.ap /index.html 12/18/00
CITY OF REXBURG
1999
20001
2001
AGWALI
FORECAST
ESTIMATED
-- TREATMENT - - --
TRE
ATMT
TRI EATMTI
& BILLING
ACCT R
ACCT NAME
EXPENSES
EXPENSES
EXPENSES
SHARE COSTS
COSTS
COSTS
COSTS
OPERATING
COSTS
25435.10
SALARIES
189985
195,000
206,200
0.85
175,270
175,270
30,930
- 45435.15
OVER/PART -TIME
7497
12,000
12,000
0.85
10,200
10,200
1,800
35.19
ACCRUEDLEAVE
-2182
1,000
1,000
0.85
850
850
150
.,1435.2 0 0 "
BENEFITS
67916
87,000
94,800
0.85
80,580
80,580
14,220
25435.25
WIC SURCHARGE
-817
800
800
0185
680
680
120
25435.27 -
UNIFORMS -
855
900
900.
0.85
765
765
135
25435.30
SUPPLIES
11766
15,300
15,300
0.90
13,770
13,770
1,530
25435.31
POSTAGE -
1351
2,200
2,200
0.36
792
792
1,408
2M5.32 ICHEMICALS
14444
16,000
16,000
1.00
16,000
16,000
0
33
SAND
96
500
500
1.00
500
500
0
35
GAS & OIL
4350
6,800
6,800
0.70
4,760
4,760
2,040
39
SMALLTOOLS -
1066
1,800
1,800
0.85
1,530
1530
270
40
SHOTSIDRUG TESTS
234
600
600
0.85
510
510
90
1
TV LINES.
4831
6,000
6,000
0.00
0
0
6,000
N25435.42
42
TESTING
9209
8,000
8000
1.00
8,000
8000
0
43
HIRED WORK
8388
17000
17,000
0.80
13600
13,600
3400
44
WEED KILLING
952
1,000
- 1,000
0.50
500
500
500
46
INSURANCE:.
10452
12,000
12,000.
0.89
10,680
10,680
1,320
.47
TRAVEL & DUES -
2077
3,500
3 500
0.85.
2,975
2 975
525
.51
TELEPHONE
6684
6,700
6,700
0.551
3.685
3,685
3,015
25435.52..
NATURALGAS
6420
6,600
6,600
1.00
6,600
6,600
0
25435.531
EFF BLDGBRRIG
3760
4,500
4 500
1.00
4,500
4 500
0
25435.532
OLD. TFMRBLOWR
49091
75,000
75 000
.1.00.
75 000
75,000
0
25435.533'
NEW TFMR
18160
25,000
25 000-
1.00
25 000
25,000
0
25435.54..`
LIFT STN
POWER
12985
17,000
17,000
0.00
0
0
17,000
25435.58.
SOLID
WASTE'
1285
1,300
1,300
1.00
1,300
1,300
0
25435.59
REP- PUMP
/BLOWR
16514
16000
16000
0.90
14,400
14,400
1,600
25435.60'
REP- BUILDING
1041
8,000
8,000
0.90
7,200
7,200
800
25435.61.:'
REP -EOUIPMENT
15564
19,000
25,000'
'0.89
22,250
22,250
2,750
25435.62`
PA
887
06
1,000
1000
.0.00
0
0
1000
25435.69 -
MISCELLANEOUS.
1935
500
500
0:50
250
250
250
TOTAL
FIXED COSTS
OPERATING COSTS 466,796 565,400
591, 0:...
.0.85
1 500,787
500,787
0
90,613
25435.77
DEPRECIATION.'
346097
380,000
380,000
0.89
338,200
0
338,200 41,800
_ 15435.78:
LIABILITY LOSS'
0
700
700-
x0.00
0
0
0 700
?'435.85 --
ASSET DISPOSAL'.
2356
1000
1,000
per item
0
0
0 1,000
_ _0435.90:
BOND INTEREST
158639
149,000
:139,000'
1.00
139,000
0
139 000 0
25435.91. r
AMORT BOND COST
771
800
800'
1.00
800
0
800 0
25435.92. °
OTHER INTEREST.
17544
21,000
69200
.1.00
69,200
0
69,200 0
25435.95
SHOP EXPO/H'
5 000
5,000'
0.90
4 500
4,500
500
25435.96 '
POLICE/FIRE-
41500
41,500
43,000
'0.89
38,270
38,270
4,730
25435.961
POLICE/FIRE
0
0
..27800
0.89
24,742
0
24,742 3,058
25435.97 '.
PARKS SERVICES
10000
10000
10,000
1.00
10,000
10,000
0
25435.98 -
CONTINGENCY-
0
0
73,000
0.851
62,050
10,950
25435.99-
GEN.OVERHEAD'
55520
65,600
'71.300-
0.85
60.605
60,605
10,695
25435.99
A/R OVERHEAD
55520
65,600
71.,300`.
0.00
0
0
71,300
25435.99
A/P OVERHEAD
27760
32,800
35' 600
-. 0.85
30,260
30 260
5 340
25435.992
GISOVERHEAD
13500
15,500
16300"
0.10
1,630
1630
14,670
25435.999
TFR TO CAPITAL
217891
0
". 0 -
' 4.00
0
0
0
TOTAL FIXED COSTS 947,098 788,500 944,000 0.83 779,257
GRAND TOTAL 1,413,894 1,354,900 1,535,400 0.83 1,280,044
" LESS INDUSTRIAL USERS SURCHARGES
LESS OTHER INCOME
TOTAL TREATMENT COSTS
GALLONS (000)-/-EQUIVALENT METERS
IiI*XBURIWRESID.,E_, a
'GIVERgGIr..
`) yyyy� �m707AL�e1LL
1;ARGE�z„�t �s"ISEWEFI; 2bfv1�G�P„0
# i$'% W/ ATEF ,1"! &GA39AGE('+�..;,^,itty
yTI -.' ` T.O A,L2;BIILL
207,315
571,942
64,743
708,102
571,942
255,356
14.400.
708,102 4391542
255 356
TOT GAL EE X GAL
METERS
=648954 572,254.
3280.
lyi�'R YSE+ _ ^ BR [V lN_t
?yd�,'7g9
�°,�"- ti'7�g�
y,s5s`P�i7rr4�y4'. {(�syy�:N1�53
%Fz 30'f3U x 3376
R e,- .n= #1D%d
Personnel Committee Recommendations
i
1)
- -° - .. auic see cost breakdown
City Hall has never been busier with construction projects, customers co
servicing of all the city departments; and we are doing it
have had for several yeazs. mmg in the door and the
g with exactly the same number of staff we
We definitely need this to be able to stay even with our current work loads and catch u
things that we are getting further behind on, such as bank reconciliations and budget reports h
the departments. p on those to
Marlyn and John will also need additional assistance b summer
time cashier position be .ex Y miner and have requested that our part-
would be dedicated to just themed to fuIl_time by this summer. The extra four hours per day
May. We would like to evaluate that request by budget time in Apd-
2)
(now $30 except for Specificalle�s to follow the Re lai
y listed higher cost cities)
3) Allow u to 40 hours cash -out of vacation
-this will save money for some departments and be more flexible for the employee.
-limit this to December payrolls only
convert rant -time ACCOunts Payable Clerk to Full -time
Part -time Cost erYear
Weeks
17
Hours
40
Wa a
8.00
Total
Wa es
5,440.00
Benefits
8.50%
462.40
Grand
Total
5,902.40
Full -time Cost per Year
35
20
8.00
5,600.00
476.00
6,076.00
Maximum Fixed Benefits
Total Cost
11,040.00
938.40
11,978.40
Future Annual Cost
Janets Overtime per Year
Total Cost
17,680.00
1,600.00
304.00
1,904.00
Current Annual Cost
12,640.00
1,242.40
13,882.40
Future Annual Cost
General Fund Contingency
Annual Savings on Farrell Davidson Retirement
105,200.00
68,500.00
19.00%
Full -time Cost per Year
52
40
8.50
17,680.00
3,359.20
21,039.20
Maximum Fixed Benefits
n/a
5,617.00
5,617.00
1,404.00
Future Annual Cost
Net Effect this Fiscal Year
Total Cost
17,680.00
8,976.20
26,656,20
Increased Annual Cost 5,040.00 7,733.80 1 12,773.80
Net Effect this Fiscal Year
General Fund Contingency
Annual Savings on Farrell Davidson Retirement
105,200.00
68,500.00
3 months gone in Fiscal Year
13
20
8.50
2,210.00
232.05
2,442.05
1,404.00
1,404.00
Net Effect this Fiscal Year
2,830.00
6,097.75
8,927.75
Avenues of Funding
General Fund Contingency
Annual Savings on Farrell Davidson Retirement
105,200.00
68,500.00
Options for PERSI employer gain sharing
Recommendation
a) City keeps it 0
b) Employee computer & software purchase or upgrade subsidy of $500 20,000
c) 401K contribution (based on balance like employee share distribution) 0
d) Cash to employee (taxable) 0
e) Education and training 1) for present job 0
2) for other job in city 0
3) for other job outside city 0
f) To health insurance savings account to stabilize rates 37,000
g) Hold until the state creates a 501 c9 (VEBA) for future retiree
health insurance and medical expenses 30,000
Total Recommendation 87,000
i
Second Reading
ORDINANCE NO. 581
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING OF DOGS;
PROHIBITING DOGS FROM RUNNING AT LARGE AND DISTURBING
THE PEACE; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT OF UNLICENSED
DOGS AND DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE; PROVIDING FOR
IMPOUNDMENT DUTIES OF POLICEMEN AND POUNDMASTER;
NOTICE OF IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION, PROVIDING
CITATION OF DOG OWNER RATHER THAN IMPOUNDMENT OF DOG;
PROVIDING FOR NON - COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSES; PROVIDING
FOR DISPOSITION OF DOGS WITH RABIES; PROVIDING FOR
DESTRUCTION OF DOGS; MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO INTERFERE
WITH SEIZURE OR DESTRUCTION OF DOGS; PROHIBITING CRUEL
TREATMENT OF DOGS; DEFINING OWNER OF DOG; PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE;
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO 411, CHAPTER 35 OF THE REVISED
ORDINANCES AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES OR PORTIONS
THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
Recommended Change: This pretext will be changed to reflect the changes in
the ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO:
SECTION I: LICENSING OF DOGS. It shall be unlawful for any person or
Persons to own, keep or harbor, any dog, male or female over 3 months ofage within the
City of Rexburg without obtaining a license therefor as hereinafter provided.
Recommended Change: It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to own, keep or
harbor, any dog, male or female over 3 months of age within the City of Rexburg without
obtaining a license therefor Fi.9 hi -.rpq .a . a a
ne=����. The fine for not having a license for
a dog will be $50.00 for the first offense,$100.00 for the second offense and $200.00 for
each subsequent offense.
Iof16
i
Second Reading
SECTION II: AMOUNT OF LICENSE. The
amount to be paid by each
applicant obtaining such license for keeping each male dog and shaved female doQ s
be $3.00 per year, and for the keeping of each unspayed female dog $5.00 per year. All
licenses shall expire on the first day of January of each year. No license shall be issued
for less than one year unless the dog was brought into the City after the first day of
January, in which case the cost of obtaining such license shall be proportionate to the cost
of the yearly license; provided that no license shall be issued for less than three months.
Recommended Chan e: Licenses will be provided free of charge for all dogs residing
within the City of Rexburg. These licenses shall be valid for the if of the
animal on
condition that the owner provides appropriate change of address forms or change of
ownership forms to the Police department. Failure to provide change of address or
ownership notification to the Police department within 30 days of such change will be
Punishable by a fine of $50.00.
SECTION III: ISSUANCE OF LICENSE. The owner, person or persons having
in charge any dog, male or female, within the City ofRexburg, shall pay to the City Clerk
the cost of obtaining such license as is provided for in this ordinance, and it shall
thereupon be the duty of the Clerk to issue a license to said person bearing the same
number as the number to be worn on the collar of the dog, as hereinafter provided. The
said license shall give the date of issue, the term for which issued, the date of its
expiration, the amount paid, the name of the person to who issued, the name and sex of
the dog and the number of the license. The Clerk shall furnish with each license a metal
2of16
Second Reading
tag which shall be stamped with the number corresponding to the number of the license
and the year of its expiration. The clerk shall keep a record of the license issued.
Recommended Change: The Police department shall issue a license
to the dog owner and shall maintain the following information regarding the license: ,the
date of issue, the name and address and phone number of the owner, the name, age and
sex of the dog; a description of the dog and the number of the license. The Police
department shall furnish with each license a metal tag which shall be stamped with the
number corresponding to the number of the license.
SECTION IV. METAL TAG ATTACHED. The metal tag, as described in
Section III of the Ordinance, shall be attached to a collar which the owner or person in
charge of the dog shall provide, and which shall be placed and kept upon the neck of such
dog.
Recommended Change: The metal tag, as described in Section III of the Ordinance,
shall be attached to a collar and the collar kept on the neck of the dog. Failure to keep
Proper identification on the dog will be punishable by a fine of $50.00.
SECTION V. UNLICENSED DOGS - IMPOUNDMENT. All dogs not licensed
and collared; as provided in Sections I, II, and III above, are declared to be a public
nuisance, and it is the duty of all policemen and the poundmaster to take up and impound
any dog not so licensed and collared.
3of16
Second Reading
j Recommended Chan e: Change: ang policemen to police officers. Add: The fine for not
having appropriate license will be $50.00 for the first offense, $100.00 for the second
offense, and $200.00 for each subsequent offense.
SECTION VI. DISTURBING THE PEACE UNLAWFUL. It is unlawful for any
Person to own, keep or harbor within the limits of the City, where tethered, caged or
otherwise, any dog which by barking howling, yelping, whimpering or whining, or by the
making of other noises, disturbs the quiet of any neighborhood or person
Recommended Chan e: Add: Disturbing the peace determination will be made by a
law enforcement officer after an investigation of said complaint. Violation of this section
of the Ordinance will punishable by a fine of $50.00 for the first offense, $100.00 for the
second offense, and $200.00 for the third offense.
SECTION VII. RUNNING LARGE _ UNLAWFUL WHEN. (LEASH LAW).
Except as provided by Section VIII hereof, it is unlawful for any person to cause, permit
or allow any dog, whether licensed or not, owned, harbored, controlled or kept by him,
within the city limits, to roam, run or stray away from the premises of the owner, and to
be or remain upon the streets or alleys of the city, or on any public place in the city or
upon any other premises without the consent of the person in possession of such
Premises, unless:
4 of15
Second Reading
j A. Such dog be in the charge of the owner or some duly authorized and
competent person and controlled by a leash or chain not exceeding ten feet in
length.
B. Such dog is safely and securely confined or completely controlled while in or
upon any motor vehicle.
Recommended Change: Change as follows for better readability.
Except as provided by Section VIII hereef, it is unlawful for any person to cause, permit
or allow any dog, whether licensed or not, nwnv. d; harbored, ,.,.., _..11ed or kept > �r him
within the city to roam, run or stray away from the premises of the owner, and to
be of re-m---*- won the eL4s or alleys of the eity,
..t f the
premises, unless:
A. Such dog be in the charge of the owner or some duly authorized and
competent person and while controlled by a leash or chain not exceeding ten feet
in length.
B. Such dog is safely and securely confined or completely controlled while in of
apes any motor vehicle.
C. Such dog is on any other premises with the consent of the person in possession
of such premises.
Failure to keep the dog under control will be punishable by a fine of $50.00 for the first
offense, $100.00 for the second offense, and $200.00 for the third offense.
5of16
, Second Reading
SECTION VIII. RUNNING AT LARGE - EXCEPTION. The City Council may
designate such areas of a public park or other rules and regulations as may be prescribed
for the use of such areas, for the training or exercise of dogs, or holding dog shows or
exhibitions. Dogs within such areas so designated need not be controlled by leash or
chain but shall be under the control of a responsible person and controlled by whistle,
voice or other effective command.
Recommended Change: The City Council may designate sueh areas of a public park -or
other _de -A re ions as y be ---- d for or other city
owned land for the training or exercise of dogs, or holding dog shows or exhibitions. .
Dogs within such areas ..o designated need not be controlled by leash or chain, but shall
be under the control of a responsible person and controlled by whistle, voice or other
effective command. Failure to comply with this section will be punishable by a fine of
$50.00.
SECTION IX. IMPOUNDMENT DUTIES OF POLICEMEN AND
POUNDMASTER. It shall be the duty of all policemen and the poundmaster to seize and
impound any dog found to be running at large as provided in Section VII as set forth
above.
Recommended Change: It shall be the duty of all pelieemea police officers and the
poundmaster to seize and impound any dog found to be running at large as provided in
Section VII as set forth above.
6of16
Second Reading
SECTION X. NOTICE OF IMPOUNDED
AND REDEMPTION OF
LICENSED DOGS. The owner of every licensed dog so seized and impounded shall be
notified by the police department in writing of the seizure and impoundment within 48
hours thereafter. Notice shall be sufficient when it identifies the dog by license number
states the date and the place of seizure, is placed in a sealed envelope addressed to the
owner of the dog at his residence as appears on the application for the current license, and
is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
Every licensed dog so seized shall be retained in the pound for a period of five
days after notice is mailed to the owner of the dog. At any time while the dog is so
impounded, the owner or keeper of the dog may redeem the same by paying to the
poundmaster the sum of 5.00 for every twenty -four hours that the dog has been held in
the pound, which shall be paid over to the City Clerk to be deposited in the general fund.
This will not relieve the owner from appearing in the Magistrate's Division of the
District Court for Madison County to answer any charges that may be filed against him
for violating any provision of this ordinance.
Recommende_n The owner of every licensed dog se seized and impounded
shall be notified by the police department telephonically within 24 hours of seizure or in
writing O'f- � a within 48 hours
thereafteF. Telephonic notice
shall be sufficient when the police officer speaks directly with the owner or written notice
shall be sufficient when it identifies the dog by license number, states the date and the
place of seizure, is placed in a sealed envelope addressed to the owner of the dog at his
residence as appears on the application for the eat license, and is deposited in the
1 United States mail, postage prepaid.
7of16
Second Reading
\) Every licensed dog se seized shall be retained in the pound for a period of five
days after notice is made telephonically or mailed to the owner of the dog. At any time
while the dog is sa impounded, the owner or keeper Of ie deg may redeem the same the
dog by paying W e Ye•,, mter- the sum of $5.00_for every twenty-four hours that the
dog has been held in the pound .we �• . , ,
r
in the generW fun This will not relieve the owner from appearing in the Magistrate's
Division of the District Court for Madison County to answer any charges that may be
filed against him for violating any provision of this ordinance. Failure to redeem the dog
will subject the owner to a penalty of $100.00.
SECTION XI. rvwOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION OF UNLICENSED
DOGS. All dogs seized and impounded which do not have a collar and license as
provided in Sections I, lI and III hereof, and whose ownership is unknown to the police
department or the poundmaster, shall be retained in the pound for a period of 72 hours,
during which time the dog may be released upon the payment of the pound fee of $5_00
per day and purchasing a license. This will not relieve the owner from appearing in the
Magistrate's Division of the District Court for Madison County to answer any charges
that may be filed against him for violating any provision of this Ordinance.
Recommended Change: All dogs seized and impounded which that do not have a collar
and license as provided in Sections I, H and III hereof, and whose ownership is unknown
to the police department or the poundmaster, shall be retained in the pound for a period of
72 hours, during which time the dog may be released apen on the payment of the pound
fee of $5.00 per day and purchasing- obtaining a license. This will not relieve the owner
8of16
Second Reading
from appearing in the
Magistrate's Division of the District Court for Madison County to
answer any charges that may be filed against him for violating any provision of this
Ordinance.. Failure to redeem the dog will subject the owner to a penalty of $100.00.
SECTION Mi. CITATION — IN LIEU OF IMPOUNDMENT. In lieu of seizing
and impounding any dog found to be running at large in violation of Section VII (the
Leash Law), the policeman or poundmaster may, if the owner of the dog is known, issue
a citation that shall meet the following requirements: Must have consecutive serial
numbers, space to provide date, time and location of offense, name and address of the
owner, and the offense by brief description.
Recommended Chan e: Change policeman to police officer
SECTION XIII. CITATION — ISSUANCE. The citation shall be issued by the
policeman or the poundmaster by handing a copy of the original to the owner, or by
mailing him a copy as provided by Section IX. If the owner does not appear before the
Magistrate with the citation within five days after he has been notified of the offense, the
Policeman or the poundmaster having knowledge of the offense and who issued the
citation, shall have prepared a formal complaint which he will verify, charging the owner
with the offense, including whether it be a first, second, third or subsequent offense, and
Present the same to the court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Recommended Change: The citation shall be issued by the pelieenx police officer or
the poundmaster by handing a copy of the original to the owner, or by mailing him a copy
as provided by Section ix. If the owner does not appear before the Magistrate with the
9of16
Second Reading
j ` J citation within five days after he has been notified of the offense, the peliee police
officer or the poundmaster ,va , z
a s Cana who issued the citation,
shall have YrepareQ prepare a formal complaint
ellelify, charging the owner
with the offense, including whether it be a first, second, third or subsequent offense, and
Present the same to the court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
SECTION W. NONCOMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE — REQUIRED —
APPLICATION. It is unlawful to keep, maintain, harbor or possess upon the premises or
any household more than two dogs, unless the owner or person in charge thereof shall
have obtained a noncommercial kennel license. Application for a noncommercial kennel
license shall be made to the city clerk and must be accompanied by the written consent to
such noncommercial kennel by at least seventy -five percent of all the persons in
possession of premises within one hundred feet, measured on street lines, of the premises
upon which said noncommercial kennel is to be maintained, and accompanied by the
deposit of a license fee of five dollars for three dogs. And an additional one dollar for
each dog over three, which deposit shall be returned to the applicant if the license is not
finally issued.
Recommended Change: Delete in entirety. There is already a disturbing the peace
clause and evidently the city has health ordinances which will satisfy this case rather than
making more work for the police department.
SECTION XV. NONCOMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE — APPLICATION —
1
CONTENTS. The application shall state the name and address of the owner, where the
10 of 16
Second Reading
j noncommercial kennel is to be kept and the number of dogs. The application shall be in
duplicate and the duplicate thereof shall be referred to the city council, and a designated
committee shall, within ten days thereof, make its report of whether or not the location
and operation of said kennel complies with the health ordinances of the city, and if such a
report is unfavorable, no licenses shall be issued.
Recommended Chance: Delete
SECTION XVI. NONCOMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE —
NONTRANSFERABLE. Noncommercial kennel licenses shall not be transferable, and
shall expire the 31' day of December of the year in which issued. Whenever additions
are made to the number of dogs for which a kennel license has been issued, the licensee
shall, within three days, report to the City Clerk and pay the required license fee;
provided, however, that whatever puppies are born the issue of a dog theretofore counted
in putting the license fee, such puppies shall not bp counted as additions until three
months old.
Recommended Change: Delete.
SECTION XVIL INDIVIDUAL LICENSE REQUIRED. The issuance of a
noncommercial kennel license shall not obviate the necessity of obtaining an individual
dog license, nor shall any of the provisions of this Ordinance be deemed to vary or alter
any of the zoning ordinances of the city.
Recommended Change: Delete
11 of 16
Second Reading
SECTION XVHI. RABIES — QUARANTINE. The poundmaster shall have
authority to order the owner of any dog showing symptoms of rabies or of any dog which
has bitten any person, so as to cause an abrasion of the skin, to subject such dog to the
city pound for quarantine for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, and if such dog shall
be determined free of rabies the same shall be returned to the owner upon payment of
one -half of the regular fee for keeping dogs impounded. No other fee shall be charged.
If such fee is not paid, the dog will be subject to disposal as provided in Sections X and
XX hereof, provided, however, that in lieu of submitting such dog to the pound, the
owner may, at his expense, admit such dog to a veterinarian for examination.
Recommended Change: The poundmaster shall have authority to order the owner of any
dog showing symptoms of rabies or of any dog which has bitten any person, s& --,r
eause an abrasion of the ski.Y3 to subject sueh the dog to the city pound for quarantine for
i
a period of not to exceed fifteen days and if such deg . If the dog shall be is determined
to be free of rabies, the same it shall be returned to the owner upon after payment of one-
half of the regular fee for keeping dogs impounded. No other fee shall be charged. If
such fee is not paid, the dog vAl be subjeet !e dispeW as previded in Seetions X and
hereof-, However, if the animal is not redeemed and fees are not paid, the owner will be
subject to a fine of $100.00. provided, however, .bat In lieu of submitting a dog to the
pound for quarantine, the owner may, at his expense, admit sash the dog to a veterinarian
for examination.
SECTION M. RABIES — DESTRUCTION. Any dog afflicted with rabies
shall be disposed of immediately, either by the owner or poundmaster.
12 of 16
Second Reading
Recommended Chance: None.
SECTION XX. DESTRUCTION OF DOGS. Dogs that have been impounded
and not redeemed as above provided are to be destroyed by the poundmaster in a humane
manner and the carcass disposed of in a lawful manner.
Recommended Chance: Dogs that have been impounded and not redeemed -as -above
provided are to will be destreyed dispositioned by the poundmaster in a humane manner
The owner of unclaimed animals will be
subject to a fine of $100.00.
SECTION XXI. UNLAWFUL TO INTERFERE WITH THE SEIZURE OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOGS. It is unlawful for any person to hinder, molest, or interfere
with any person who is lawfully engaged in seizing, impounding, or destroying any dog,
or removing the carcass as provided in this Ordinance.
Recommended Change: None
SECTION XXII. CRUELTY PROHIBITED. It is unlawful for any person to
maltreat or torture any dog, or having the right or authority to kill any dog, to kill such
dog in an inhumane manner.
Recommended Change: It is unlawful for any person to maltreat or torture any deg
animal, or having the right or authority to kill any deg animal, to kill sueh deg the animal
in an inhumane manner.
13 of 16
Second Reading
j SECTION XXIII. DEFINITION. The term owner as used in this ordinance shall
be construed to mean and include any person, persons, association, business entity, or
corporation owning, harboring or keeping a dog or dogs within the corporate limits of the
City of Rexburg, Idaho. The term dog as used in this ordinance shall mean and include
either male or female.
Recommended Change: The term owner as used in this ordinance shall be construed to
mean and include any person, persons, association, business entity, or corporation
owning, harboring or keeping a dog or dogs within the corporate limits of the City of
Rexburg, Idah^ •rw° +e...., a
a�
male er-female.
SECTION XXIV. VIOLATIONS - PENALTIES. Any person or persons
violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as follows:
For violation of Section I (dogs to be licensed) by a fine of $15.00;
For violation of Section VI (disturbing the peace) by a fine of not over $100.00;
For violation of Section VII (leash law) by a fine of $15.00 for the fast offense,
$20.00 for the second offense, $30.00 for the third offense, and not exceeding $100.00
upon all subsequent offenses, all involving the same dog;
For violation of Sections XIV through XVII (kennels) by a fine of not over
$100.00
For violation of any other section of this Ordinance by a fine of not over $100.00.
In addition thereto, all found guilty will be assessed costs.
14 of 16
. Second Reading
Recommended Change: Any persons or persons violating the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as indicated in each
section. In addition, all found guilty will be assessed costs.
SECTION XXV. REPEALING ORDINANCES. Ordinance No. 411, Chapter 35
of Revised Ordinances, and all ordinances or portions of ordinances in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed. Recommended Change: Change as required.
SECTION XXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication.
Recommended Change: Change as required.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, and APPROVED by
the Mayor this 20s' day of July, 1977. Recommended Change: Change as required.
SECTIONS to be Added to the Ordinance.
1. It shall be unlawful to give away animals at any place of business or on city land
within the city limits without first obtaining a permit from the Police department. The
form to be completed for approval of permit application is at Attachment 1. The fine for
this offense will be $200.00.
2. It shall be unlawful to abandon animals within the city limits or to abandon city
animals in the surrounding country. The fine for this offense will be $500.00.
IN modirl